LexTHE CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, c. J. ' K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGQPALA AYYANGAR, J. R~ MUDHOLKAR, and T. L. . VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.) · GaB and gas-works-Enactment by State Legislature- OonBtitutional validity-Writ Petition -Locus standi-Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960 (W.B. 15 of 1960), s. 4-0onstitution of India Arts. 226, 246, Sch. VI~, List II, Entries 24,25. By an agreement entered into by the appellant company and the Oriental Gas Company, the appellant was appointed as Manager of the later company which owned an industrial undertaki'ng for the manufacture and sale of fuel gas in Calcutta with the right to receive n~rr1uneration as specified in the agree- ment. The West Bengal Legislature passed the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960, and s.4 of that Act provided that the said undertaking shall stand transferred to the St>te Government for five years for management and control. On October 3, 1960, the State Government issued three no:ifications One of which appointed October 7, 1960, as the date on and from which the management and control of the said undertaking would be taken over by it. The appellant by a petition under Art. 226 of the Comtitution impugned the constitutional validity of the said Act and sou~ht for appropriate writs res- training the State Government for giving effect to it and for quashing the said notifications. The High Court found again~t the petitioner and rejected the petition. ·Held, th1t the State L~gislature had the competence to enact the impugned Act and its constitutional -validity . was beyond question. Article 226 of the Constitution confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and '\-\Tits not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but other legal rights as well. Since the appellant's lawful rights under t\le agreement had been abrid~ed, if not wholly destroyed, by the impugned Act, it had the locus • .,tandii'. to apply under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The State of Orissa v. Madan Go,,,al Rungta, [1952] S.C.R. 28 and Ohiranjit Lnl Ohoudhuri v. The Union of India, [1950] S. C.R. 869, referred to. · 1 . 1962 FebmaryS. 1962 Tiu C:11lc'u1ta Ga11 Com/iauy P1cprietorJ) lt1l. v ?'ht Stau of U·' est Btrigal S11bha I ao J. 2 SUPRE:\IE OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1'hc entries in the three Legislative Lists arr. only lcgisa lativc hcadS or fields of legislation that den1arcatc the area over which the appropriate legislature operates and it is \\'Cll settled that tl1e .language of the entries should be widely con- strued. If any entries overlap or are in direct conflict \Vith each other, C\'cry attempt should he 1nadc to harmonise thc1n, \Vhether the fntrics belong to the same List or different "List-;, so that no entry may be robbed of its entire content and made nugatory. In re tl;c Central l'ro1~inceR and Berar .1ct, h"o. XI\,. of 1933, [1939] F. C.R. 18 and Stale of Bonzl,ay ,._ .\"orothamdas Jethabhai, [1951] S. C.R. 51, rcfcrrecl to. So construed Entry 24 of List II which is in apparent conflict \Vith Entry 25 of the !'a.me list, must be he'.d to cover all industries in a State except Ga" and (;as•\\·orks \\'hich arc specifically dealt "·ith by F.n°try 2'i anrl exclusively a!lotted to it. It is clear that the express intention of the Constitution \Va'\ to carve out Ga~ and Gas-\vorks industry from F.ntrv 24 an<l ·hring them under Fntry '.!:i a11d treat them in nOrma\ tin1es as State indtJslri<'s. It \rould he rrroncous to sav that such an intc-rpretation \\'1)tild prevent thC Parliarncnf from making lan·s in respect of Gas and (;as-\vurks during \\'ar or other national c1nergenrics. C!YIL APPEI,LA'n~ l·h::RISDICTIOX: Civil Appe<d No. 138 of l!JGI. App1·al by fipecial leave frnm thP jmlgmrnt and order dated November I :i. 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in }fatter No. 235 of l!lGO. Jlf. C. Setalrad. Atlorney-Genr-ralfor India, R.R. L. lyengnr and IJ. P. Mnheshn·ari, for the a.ppellant. S. Jlf. Rn.<e, Adrocale-Urnu-al, W e.~t Bengal, B. Sen, P. ](. Ch11ttei:jec, 8. C. Rose, Milon Banne1:j1'. and P. K. Bnsr., for the respollrlcnts '.\'os. I to 4. · 1962. February 5. The ,Judgment of the Court was ddivered by SuBBA RAO •• l,-This appeal by special kavc is against the ,Judgment ancl Ordt·r dated ~ovember Hi, 1960, of the High Court of .Judi cat.Ure at Caleu lta diomissing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.