THE RAJAHMUNDRY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 10-02-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE RAJAHMUNDRY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 
CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c. J., MUKHERJEA, 
779 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Madras 
Electricity 
Supply 
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act-
{ Madras Act XLIII of 1949)-Volidity of-No entry in 
the three 
Legislative Lists of seventh schedule of Government of India Act, 
193_5. 
The Madras 
Ele<tricity 
Supply 
Undertakings 
(Acquisition) 
Act (Madras Act XLIII of 1949) was beyond the legislative com-
petency of the Madras Legislature because there was no entry 
in 
any of the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule 
of the Govern-
1nent 
of 
India 
Act, 1935, 
relating to compulsory acquisition of 
any commercial or industrial undertaking although s. 299 (2) 
clearly 
contemplated 
a law authorising compulsory acquisition for 
public purposes of a commercial or industrial undertaking. 
State of Bihar 
v. 
Maharajadhiraja 
Sir 
Kameshwar Singli 
([1952] S.C.R. 889) referred to. 
C1VIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTJON: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 72 of 1952. 
Appeal under articles 132 ( 1) and 133 ( 1) (b) of the 
Constitution of India from the J udgmeni: and Order 
dated the 27th April, 1951, of the High Court of 
Judicature at 
Madras 
(Rajamannar C. J. and Satya-
narayana 
Rao 
J.) 
in Civil 
Miscellaneous 
Petition 
No. 4697 of 1951. 
M. K. Nambiyar (U. Sethumadhava Rao, with him) 
for the appellant. 
M. Seshachalapathi for the respondent. 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (Porus 
A. Mehta and V. V. Raghavan, with him) for the Inter-
vener (State of Madras). 
1954. February 10. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAs }.-This is an appeal arising out of a judg-
. ment delivered on the 27th April, 1951, by a Bench of 
the Madras High Court in C.M.P. No .. · 4697 of 1951 
filed under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue 
of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to call 
1954 
Feiruary 10. 
1954 
The Rajahmundry 
Electric Supply 
Corporation Ltd. 
v. 
Tht State of 
Andhra. 
Das]. 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954} 
for the records and quash the order of the Government 
passed under section 4( 1) of the Madras Act XLIII of 
1949 declaring the undertaking of the appellant com-
pany to vest in the Government. 
The appellant company was formed and registered 
under the Indian Companies Act in 1924 with the 
object, inter alia, of generating and supplying electri-
cal energy to the public in Rajahmundry. In 1949 the 
Madras Legislature passed 
the 
Madras 
Electricity 
Supply 
Undertakings 
(Acquisition) 
Act, 
1949. The 
Act received the assent of the Governor-General on the 
18th January, 1950, and was published in the Official 
Gazette on the 24th January, 1950. Upon the Cons-
titution of India coming into force on the 26th Janu-
ary, 1950, the Act was submitted to the President for 
his certification and on the 12th April, 1950, the Pre-
sident certified that the Act should not be called in 
question in any court on the ground that it contravened 
the provisions of clause (2) of article 31 or it contravened 
the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 299 of the 
Government of India Act, 1935. By an order in writ-
ing made on the 2nd September, 1950, the Govern-
ment of Madras acting under section 4(1) of the Act 
declared that the undertaking of the appellant com-
pany should vest ·in the Government on the date speci-
fied therein. Under the proviso to section 4(1) the 
Government from time to time postponed the date of 
vesting and the 2nd April, 1951, was the last extend-
ed date fixed for such vesting. On the 29th March, 
1951, the appellant company filed C.M.P. No. 4697 of 
1951, under article 226 for quashing the order of the 
Government. 
Shortly stated the contentions of the appellant be-
fore the High Court were that the Act was ultra vires 
in that (1) it was beyond the legislative competency of 
the Madras Legislature to enact it, (2) it was not 
enacted to subserve any public purpose, and (3) the com-
pemation provided for was illusory. 
The High Court 
repelled each and all of the aforesaid contentions of 
the appellant company. It held that the legislation 
was with respect to electricity under entry 31 of the 
• 
:S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
781 
concurrent list· in the 
seventh 
Schedule 
to 
the 
Government of India Act, 1935, and was not a legislation 
with respect to corporations under entry 33 in list I as 
contended by the appellant and that, therefore, the. 
M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.