LexGOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF GOA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 5 S.C.R. 970 GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA AND ANR. (Writ Petition (c) No. 200 OF 2002 Etc.) MAY 3, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002: ss. 2, 3 and 4 - Act prohibiting payment, requiring recovery of benefits from beneficiaries and extinguishing all liabilities of State arising from void Notifications - Held: Having regard to the fact that the action in issuing the · D Notifications was unauthorised and wholly illegal and as the industrial units could not be allowed to reap the benefits of the illegal notifications, the State Legislature in its competence rightly enacted the Act - It cannot be said that the Act is aimed at nullifying the judgment of the Supreme Court or giving E effect to the judgment of the High Court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), Seventh Schedule - List Ill, Item 38. Constitution of India. 1950: F Seventh Schedule - List Ill, Item 38 - Electricity tariff - Legislature of State of Goa enacting Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 - Held: Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act is traceable to Entry 38 in List Ill of the Seventh Schedule - G The Act has been enacted in the larger public interest to save the public exchequer from being drained of - The State has every right to recover, by resorting to legislative measures, the benefits availed of by the persons who cannot be permitted to retain the same - The object of the Act is not to H 970 GOA GLASS FIBRE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GOA 971 AND ANR. undo or reverse the judgments either of tqe Supreme Court A or the High Court nor is it aimed at giving effect to the judgment of the High court - The Act meets and satisfies the constitutional test completely - Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002. Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 32- Industrial Units challenging 8 a State enactment on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Held: No citizen has complained that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) are violated by the Act - Nor is there anything in the Act which suggests invidious discrimination, unreasonable classification C or manifest violation of equality clause - Therefore, the writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable - Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002. D The Legislature of the State of Goa enacted the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payment and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 making provisions for recovery of benefits under Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 availed of by certain Low Tension, High Tension and E Extra High Tension electricity consumers, and to prohibit any further payment under the said notifications. The instant writ petitions were filed challenging the provisions of the said Act primarily on the grounds that F it sought to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court passed on 13.2.2001, affirming the view taken by the High Court in its judgment dated 21.1.1999 and that the Act also sought to give effect to the decision dated 191 24.4.2001 rendered by the High Court, which judgment had the effect of overruling the judgment of the Supreme Court passed on 13.2.2001, more so, when the said G judgment was subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court. The stand of the respondent State was that the Notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 were not authorized by law inasmuch as the Minister for Power got the said notifications is~;ued at his own level without H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. A making a reference either to the Chief Minister·or the Council of Ministers or without consulting the Finance Department, as was mandatorily required under the Rules; that there was neither financial sanction nor budgetary provision nor cabinet approval as required 8 under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996 could not be said to be the decision of the State Government in the strict sense of law and, as such, the claims for rebate under these·Notifications which run into several crores of rupees could not be borne by the C State Exchequer; and that since the two Notifications had illegally imposed a heavy burden on the State Exchequer, the Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.