E R SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the State of Punjab, the Punjab Electricity Board and the Resident Engineer, Shanan Power House, Joginder Nagar, respectively, respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 The petitioners challenge the validity of the levy of electricity duty, imposed upon them, under Section 3 of the Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petition is based on the following allegations: The petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 2. They are, at present stationed at Joginder Nagar, in Himachal Pradesh and are working, in different capacities, in connection with the generation, control and supply of electrical energy, at and from the Shanan Power House, Joginder Nagar, under the control of respondent No. 2. The Legislature of the State of Punjab passed the Act for levying duty on the sale or consumption of electricity, supplied by respondent No. 2 to consumers or licensees. Presumably under the assumption, that the electricity duty under the Act, is leviable on the petitioners also respondent No. 8 started issuing bills to the petitioners in respect of electricity duty. The assumption is wholly incorrect. The Act passed by the Legislature of Punjab can have no operation in Himachal Pradesh in which territory the petitioners are supplied and consume electricity. The Act does not apply to the petitioners and the electricity duty cannot be levied on them under the Act.

(2.) The petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a joint return. They admit that the petitioners are employees of respondent No. 2 and are stationed at Joginder Nagar, in Himachal Pradesh and that the petitioners get electrical energy and consume it in Himachal Pradesh. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioners, as employees of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, are liable to pay electricity duty under the Act. The further plea of the respondents is that the status of the Board, respondent No. 2, in Himachal Pradesh, is that of a producer of electricity and not that of a licensee under the Electricity Act and respondent No. 2 is entitled to recover electricity duty from the petitioners on the consumption of electricity, supplied to the petitioners on a mutual voluntary basis.

(3.) Respondent No. 1, in its reply, has pleaded that the action of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in demanding electricity duty from the petitioners on the consumption of electrical energy in their respective premises in Shanan is valid and in accordance with and in pursuance of obligations, imposed upon respondent No. 2, under the Act.