VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILLS LIMITED versus THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 10-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

VIRUDHUNAGAR STEEL ROLLING MILIS LIMITED 
A 
v. 
THE GOVERNMEl'iT OF MADRAS 
January I 0, I 968 
[K .. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, 
J. M. SnELAT 
G. K. MITTER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 32-Peziiion under Art. 226 no notice to 
respondent-disn1issed by single Judge-Appeal to division bench also 
dis1nissed by speaking order-Petilioner nor filin~ appeal but a petition 
under Art. 32-Whetlter petition barred hy re.; ju<licata. 
Madras E/cc1rfcity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1962, s. 12-// 
vio/Gtive of Art. 14. 
The petitioner, a public limited con1pany manufacturing various steel 
and iron products, requested the respondenr ;\ladras Government for an 
exemption from tax under s. 12 of the Madras Eectricitv Act No. JV of 
1962 which provided that wh"e energy of a specified type was consumed 
in the process of manufacture or production in an industrial undertaking 
licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) 'Act 65 of 
1951, no electricity tax shall he payable on the energy so consumed for 
a period of three years from the date of the commencement of production. 
The petitioner's cac;c wa'\ that though it did not require a licence under 
s. 11 of the later Act in view of the notification issued by the Central Govt. 
under s. 29-B by which industrial undertakings having fixed assets not 
exceeding Rs. I 0 lakhs were not required to obtain µ licence, it was still 
governed by Act 65 of 1951 for the purposes of s. 12 of Madras Act No. 
IV of 1962. The respondent Government rejected the claim on the ground 
that no exemption could he granted under s. 12 of the Madras Act tD 
undertakings which were not licensed under the Central Act. 
Thereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court attack-
ing :s. 12 of the Madras Act under Art. 14 of the Omstitution and con-
tending that it should also ha~e hcen granted the cxem~tion claimed. The 
petition was dismissed by _a Single Judge \\'ithout i<><>ue of notice by a short 
order to the effect that the pctitior.or was not entitled :o the benefit of 
s. 12 of the Madras Act and the validi!v of the Sl!'Ction could not be attack-
ed as the exemption provided was based on sohnd principlc<;.An appeal to 
a Division Bench \\."as also dismissed. The petitioner did not file an appeal 
from the order of the Division Bench but chose to file the present petition 
under Art. 32 claiming the same reliefs as in his carl!cr petition to the 
High Court. The respond·~nt raic;ed a preliminary obj~ction tha1 the peti-
tion wa'\ not maint:linahle -in view of th~ petitioner·~ 'failure to file 
an 
~ppeal from the order of the Divio;ion Rench. 
Jt wa~ also contended on 
the merits that s. 12 of the Madra> Act wa< not hit by Art. 14. 
HELD : dio;miss;ng the petition : 
(i) The preliminary objection must he upheld. 
The pctitiO'ller did not appeal from the order of the Division Bench. 
The High Court made a speaking order dealing with the merits of the 
case and the fact that no notice was issued to the other side before such 
an orch..~ was passed v.-·as immaterial in the circumstances. 
The present 
B 
c 
(). 
E 
F 
G 
ff. 
. \· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
VIRUDHUNAGAR ROLLING MILLS v. MADRAS (Wanchoo, C.l.) 741. 
petition under Art. 32 on the same facts for the same relief based on 
the same article of the Constitution w~s therefore barred. [744 DJ 
Where a writ petition is dismissed without notice to the other ·side but 
the order of dismissal is speaking orde'r and the petition is disposed o~ .o°: 
merits, that would still amount to res judicata and would bar a petition 
under Art. 32. The petitioner's only proper remedy in such a case wol;lld 
he to come in appeal from such a speaking order passed on the ments. 
[743 E-Fl 
Daryao v. The State of U.P., [1962] 1 S.C.R. 574; explained and 
applied. 
(ii) Section 12 of the Madras as Act was not hit by Art. 14 of the 
C.onstitution. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 38 of 1967. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
R. Gppalakrishnan, for the petitioner. 
A. V. Rangam, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, C.J. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company 
manufacturing bars, rods and agricultural ·implements out 
of 
scrap iron and steel and consumes energy of High Tension 
Supply for the purpose. 
Its case is that it is governed by the 
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, No. 65 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.