LexM/S. WEST RAMNAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. versus STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) 2 S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S 747 MfS. Wfll'IT RAMNAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBU- TION CO. LTD. v. STATE OF MADRAS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA 'RAO, K. N. WANOHOO, J. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Electricity Undertaking-Acquisition-Act Validating action taken under earlier Acl rleclared ultra vires-Valirlity-lJasis of comp1Ltation of compensation, if valid-Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, (Mad. 43 of 1949), s. 4-Marlras Electricity Supply Unrlertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954 (Mad, 29 of 1954), ss. 5, 24-0onstitution of Inrlia Arta. 20(1), 81 (1) (2). By an order dated May 17, 1951, the appellant under- taking vested in the respondent from September 21, 1951, under the provisions of s. 4( l) of the Madras Electricitv Supply. Undertakings Act 1949. Thereafter the respondea't appointed the Chief Electrical Adviser . as the Acquisition Officer who took over possession on the appointed date, and a part of the compensation payable under the Act was paid. The validity of the said Act, was challenged by some other electrical undertakings in Madras and in Raja- mundkry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd .. v. State of Andkra Prade•k, the Supreme Court held that the Act of 1949 was ultra vires. After the said decision was pronounced, the Madras Legislature passed the impugned Act, the Madras Act 29 of 1954. The Act incorporated the main provisions of ~arlier Act of 1949 and purporled the validate action taken under the said earlier Act. A new Government order was issued and the Chief Electrical Adviser was appointed the Acquisition Officer of the apJ'l'llant concerned. As a result of this order, the appellant undertaking which had been taken over by the respondent earlier in 1951, continued to be in. the possession of the Respondent. The appellant filed two writ petitions and alleged that to the extent to which the Act purported to validate acts dono under the earlier Act of 1949 it was uUra vires, ineffectual and inoperative. It was further urged that the three basis of compensation laid down by the Act were inconsistent with the requirements of 1962 l~B IF''' Ramnt1'I Ellffrk DUl,ibuliOll Cv. J,U, ... SltJll OJ 111-4,M 748 SUPREME OOU~T REPORTS (1963) Art. 31 of the Constitution, and 10; the operative provison1 of the Act were unconstitutional. The question was also raised whether or not it was competent to the Legislature to pass a law restrospectively to validate· action taken under a void Act. Held, that it was within the competence of the Madras Legislature to enact a law and make it retrospective in oper- ation. The Madras Act, 29 of 1954, in terms is intended to apply to undertakings of which possession had already been taken, and that obviously means that its material and opera- tive proviaions are retrospective. The ell'ect of s. 24 is that if a noti6cation had been issued properly under the provisions of the earlier Act and validity could not have been impeached if the said provisions were themselves valid, it would be deemed to have been validiy issued under the provisions of the Act, provided, of course, it is not inconsistent with the other provisiona of the Act. It is a saving and validating provision and it clearly intends to validate action taken under the relevant provisions of the earlier Act which was invalid from the start. Held, further, that Art. 31(1), of the Constitution, un- like Art. 20(1), does not use the expression "law in force at the time", it merely says "by authorit) of law" and so, if a subsequent law pass~ by the Legislature is retrospective in its operation, it would satisfy the requirement of Art. 31(1) and would validate the impugned notification in the present cue. The Lcgialature can pass a law retrospectively valid· ating action taken under a Jaw which was void because it conuavened f=damental rights If the Legislature can by retrospective legislation cure the invalidity of action taken in pursi.ance of laws which were void for want of legislative competance and can validate such action by appropriate pro- ~. visions, the same po~cr can be equally cfl'cctively exercised by the Legialature for validating actions taken under lawa which are void for the reason that they conrravened funda- mental rights.· Held, also, that the failure of the Legislature to refer to the fair ·market value cannot, be regarded as conclusive or even presumptive evidence of the fact that wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.