HUBLI ELECTRICITY CO LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the Hubli Electricity Co., Ltd., against the Province of Bombay entitled "In the matter of the High Court Suit No. 610 of 1944 (The Hubli Electricity Co., Ltd. V/s. The Province of Bombay), and in the matter of the order dated May 3, 1944, issued by the Secretary to Government by order of the Governor of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939,-And In the matter of Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code."

(2.) The petition is distinctly unusual, and the only question before me at the moment is whether this is a proper form of proceeding. The learned Advocate General on behalf of the Province of Bombay takes a preliminary objection that this is not the proper form of proceedings, and that is all I have to decide at the moment. I therefore assume, without deciding, that the statements contained in the petition are and that each of them is correct. But I desire to make it abundantly clear that I am not deciding anything of the sort. I am merely assuming that for the purpose of dealing with the preliminary objection before me.

(3.) According to the petition the petitioners held an electricity licence under the Electricity Act, 1910, and on January 28, 1044, an Officer of the Government wrote to them purporting to revoke it with effect from May 1, 1944, under Section 4(2)(b) of the said Act : on March 1 a notice appeared in the press inviting applications from intending purchasers of the undertaking, which notice was repeated in at least one another paper on March 2. The point about this is that the period of three months given by Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act within which the local authority has the right of purchasing the undertaking of a licensee whose license has been revoked under the previous section had not yet expired. The presumption however being (even against the Province of Bombay) that things are done properly until it is proved that they are done improperly, I think I am justified in assuming that some day in February; the local authority must have intimated that they did not propose to purchase the undertaking; if so, the respondents would be acting perfectly within their rights if they advertised for other purchasers. The petition however alleges that on March 13, 1944, the petitioners gave to the Secretary of the Government notice as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code contesting the validity of the revocation of the licence and intimating that the present petitioners intended to file a suit. I may say that that suit has been duly filed, and that is the suit mentioned in the title of the present petition and that a motion is pending in that suit for an injunction-very much to the same effect as the order sought on the present petition. On March 30, 1944, an order was issued to the petitioners under Rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules requiring them to comply with the directions of a certain officer of Government, followed by an order of April 4 whereby another gentleman was appointed the officer in connection with the order of March 30, 1944.