Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.versusM/S. BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 364
- Decided
- 10 May 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Holding
Premises to which the Mines Act applies are deemed to fall under Item (1) of the Table to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, and the higher electricity duty rate therefore applies, precluding the lower rate under Item (2).
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had held the electricity duty payable by Mis. Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for power consumed at its limestone mine premises should be calculated at the lower rate under Item (2) of the Table to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. The State argued that because the Mines Act, 1952 applied to the premises, they fell within Item (1) of the Table, which attracts a higher duty rate. The Supreme Court examined the construction of Section 3, its Table and the proviso, and held that premises to which the Mines Act applies are covered by Item (1), so the higher duty rate applies, rendering the High Court's decision unsustainable. Consequently, the validation Act was not required to be examined for constitutionality. The Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition challenging the validation Act.
Issues considered
- The appropriate item of the Table to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 applicable to premises where the Mines Act, 1952 is in force
- Whether the lower duty rate under Item (2) can be applied to such premises despite the higher rate under Item (1)
- The sustainability of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1984 in view of the High Court's decision
Legislation cited
Subjects
electricity dutyMines Actfactory definitionrate of dutyvalidation actstatutory interpretationprovisohigher duty ratelower duty rate
Judgment
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. A
v.
MIS. BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.
MAY 10, 1995
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 194~Section 3--Duty leviable
on consumption of electrical energy-Premises to which Mines Act, 1952 ap-
plies-'Factory'-Meaning of
c
The respondent had set up several industries all over the country for
the manufacture and sale of consumable goods. One of such industries was
. ~·· set up with line stone mines at one place and a cement factory at another
place in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Huge lime stone boulders extracted
•
from the mines known as dhokas were broken into small sizes lime stones D
known as gittis for being used as raw material for manufacture of cement
in the cement factory by a lime-stone crusher erected at a premises located
at the mines-head of lime-stone mines to which the Mines Act applied. For
the electrical energy consumed by the lime stone crusher in that premises
at mines bead during the year 1979-1980, the Government of Madhya
Pradesh levied duty u/s 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 E
at the rate calculated under Item (i) of Table below that Section and raised
demands thereon.
The respondent refuted such levies and demands by contending that
it was liable for levy of duty on electrical energy consumed for breaking F
dhokas into gittis by the lime stone crusher in the premises at mines head
only at a fate calculated in Item (2) of Table to Section 3 of the 1949 Act,
notwithstanding the applicability of the Mines Act to the said premises, in
that that premises bad to be regarded as a factory for fixing the rate of
duty payable on electrical energy consumed therein because of inclusive
meaning of factory given in Explanation (c) to section 3 of that Act itself. G
Since the Government of Madhya Pradesh persisted in its demands, the
respondents flied a Writ Petition challenging the said levies and demands.
The High Court quashed the levies and demands by upholding the conten-
tion that its liability to pay duty was only at the rate calculated under
clause (2) of Table to section 3 of the Act. Hence this appeal. H
271
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A While the correctness of the said judgment and order of the High
Court was pending consideration and decision by this Court, the State of
Madhya Pradesh enacted and brought into force the Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1984 which amended
certain provisions of the 1949 Act, validating duty levied on consumption
B of electrical energy imposed under the 1949 Act in respect of premises to
which the Mines Act applied. The respondents filed Writ Petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India impugning the constitutionality of
the Validation Act. Since questions in the Civil Appeal and the Writ
Petition related to sustainability of levy imposed under the 1949 Act on
electrical energy consumed in a premises to which the Mines Act applied,
C they were disposed of together.
Allowing the appeal and dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The rates of duty leviable under various items in the
D Table to Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 apply
according to the purpose for which electrical energy is sold or consumed.
The proviso to the table declares that the electrical energy sold or supplied
for consumption for any one purpose is used either wholly or partly,
without the consent of the distributor of energy or producer of electricity,
E as the case may be, for consumption for any other purpose for which
higher rate of duty is chargeable, the entire energy sold or supplied shall
be charged at the highest rate applicable. This proviso, therefore, expressly
states that the rates of duty leviable for electrical energy consumed by
premises or purpose covered by more than one item, it is the highest rate
fixed under them which is leviable where the consumer of electrical energy
F does not obtain the consent from the distributor of electrical energy or
producer of electricity for change in such user, hence, according to the
proviso if consent is obtained by the consumer of electrical energy from
the distributor of energy or producer of electricity for using electric energy
in a premises of a factory covered by Item (2) it cannot be used for
G premises covered under Items (1) and if such thing is done without
obtaining such consent, instead of lower duty payable for a premises
covered under Item (2) higher duty for a premises covered under Item (1)
becomes payable. Hence, Proviso to the Table requires that a consumer of
electrical energy must declare before such consumption as to the purpose
H for which it would be consumed in the sense when it would be consumed
STATEOFM.P. v. BIRLAJUTEMFG.CO. LID. 273
for the purpose covered under Item (1) or Item (2) or Item (3) or Item A
(4) or Item (5) of the table. The requirement of the proviso which is
' understood in the context of the provisions under different items, the
purpose for which electrical energy is consumed, if falls under more than
one item, the rate at which duty becomes Ieviable would be of the item for
which highest rate of duty is fixed. [280-E-H, 281-A-B] B
1.2. A factory under clause (c) to the Explanation to section 3 since
includes premises used for purposes of industries which require raw
materials for carrying on the manufacturing process and prepare finished
goods for sale, the premises of the respondents at the mines head of their
lime-stone mines of the State Madhya Pradesh where lime stone C
boulder-dhokas extracted from the mines were broken into small pieces,
i.e. gittis for being used in their cement factory or factory requiring
raw-material for carrying on the manufacturing process and prepare
finished goods of cement for sale, falls within the description of premises
covered by Item (2) of the Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act. But when such D
premises also falls within the description of premises covered by Item (1)
because of clause (b)(l) to the Explanation the duty payable for electrical
energy used therein could only be what is payable for premises under Item
(1) of Table to section 3. Since a premises for which Mines Act is made
applicable becomes a premises covered by Item (1) of Table to section 3
of the 1949 Act which provides for highest rate of duty leviable for electrical E
energy consumed in such premises question of leviability of lower duty for
such consumption merely because of that premises answering the descrip-
tion of premises in other item of the Table respecting which lower duty is
leviable can never arise when once highest rate under an item is leviable,
lower rate leviable under other items is excluded. It is, therefore, that F
premises covered by Item (1) to the Table to which Mines Act is made
applicable being the premises of the respondents at their mines-site gets
covered by Item (1) of Table and hence the duty payable for consumption
of electrical energy in that premises shall be at the rate payable for the
premises covered under Item (1) of the Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act. G
[281-E-H, 282-A-B]
2. When the judgment and order of the High Court under the present
·appeal, which was sought to be made ineffective by the Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Act 1984, is held to be
unsustainable, it is unnecessary to examine the constitutionality of the H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Validation Act. [282-G]
Govt. of A.P. v. H.M. T., [1975] Suppl. SCR 394, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5507 of
1995 etc.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.82 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in M.W.P. No. 520 of 1980.
Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.
C Darshan Singh for Khaitan & Co. A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATACHALA, J. Special leave sought for in S.L.P. No. 5670 of
1982 is granted.
D
The State of Madhya Pradesh, its Electrical Adviser and Regional
Accounts Officer of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, have filed the
above Civil Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, impugn-
ing a Division Bench judgment and order dated May 1, 1982 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Writ Petition No. 520/80 wherein it has
E been held that the rate of duty payable on consumption of the electrical
energy under the Madhya pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 194!t-''the 1949
Act" in premises of M/s. Birla Jute Manufacturing Company
Limited-''M/s. Birla Ltd." to which the Mines Act, 1952-"the Mines Act"
applied, was required to be calculated under Item (2) and not Item (1) of
F Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act.
M/s. Bria! Ltd., and its Director, Shri M.M. Gododia, have filed the
above Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, impugn-
ing the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amend-
ment and Validation) Act, 1984-''the validation Act" which amended
G certain provisions of the 1949 Act, Validating duty levied on consumption
of electrical energy imposed under the 1949 Act in respect of premises to
which the Mines Act applied, since questions arising for our consideration
and decision in the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition relate to sus-
tainability of levy imposed under the 1949 Act on electrical energy con-
H sumed in a premises to which the Mines Act applied, they could be
STATEOFM.P. v. BIRLAJUTEMFG.CO.LTD. [VENKATACHALA,J.] 275
disposed of together. A
Facts which are material for a proper consideration of the questions
arising for our decision in the said appeal and writ petition, could be stated
thus:
Mis. Birla Ltd., has set up several industries all over the country for B
the manufacture and sale of consumable goods. One of such industries. set
up by Mis. Birla Ltd. is Mis. Satna Cement Works with lime-stone mines
at one place and a cement factory at another place, in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Huge lime-stone boulders extracted from the mines known as
dhokas are broken into small sized lime-stones known as gittis for being C
used as raw- material for manufacture of cement in the cement factory by
a lime-stone crusher erected in a premises located at the mines- head of
lime-stone mines to which the Mines Act applies. For the electrical energy
consumed by the lime-stone crusher in that premises at mines-head during
the year 1979-1980, the Government of Madhya Pradesh levied duty under
section 3 of the 1949 Act at a rate calculated under Item (1) of Table below D
that section and raised demands thereon, against Mis. Birla Ltd. Such
levies and demands were refuted by Mis. Birla Ltd. by contending that it
was liable for levy of duty on electrical energy consumed for breaking
dhokas into gitti.s by the lime-stone crusher in the premises at mines-head
only at a rate calculated in Item (2) of Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act,
notwithstanding the applicability of the Mines Act to the said premises, in E
that that premises had to be regarded as a factory for fixing the rate of
duty payable on electrical energy consumed therein because of inclusive
meaning of factory given in Explanation (c) to section 3 of the 1949 Act
itself. Since the Government of Madhya Pradesh persisted in its demands
made against Mis. Birla Ltd., the latter filed a Writ Petition, Misc. W.P. F
No. 520 of 1980 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the said
levies and demands. A Division Bench of the High Court taking the aid of
Explanation (c) to section 3 of the 1949 Act, quashed' the levies and
demands challenged by Mis. Birla Ltd., by upholding the contention that
its liability to pay duty was only at the rate calculated under clause (2) of
Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act, by its judgment and order dated May G
1, 1982 rendered in that writ petition. It is the correctness of that judgment
and order which has been under challenge in the present appeal filed by
the State of Madhya Pradesh, its Electrical Adviser and Regional Accounts
Officer of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board.
While, the correctness of the aid judgment and order of the High H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Court in the present appeal was pending consideration and decision by this
Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh enacted and brought into force the
aforesaid Validation Act. What has been impugned in the present writ
petition by M/s. Birla Ltd. is the constitutional validity of that Validation
Act.
B We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties in the
appeal as well as the writ petition. We have been taken through the
judgment of the High Court under appeal and the relevant provisions of
the 1949 Act and the Validation Act. Whether the duty leviable on con-
sumption of electrical energy by M/s. Birla Ltd., under section 3 of the 1949
C Act in their premises to which the Mines Act applies is at the rate specified
in Item (1) or Item (2) of the Table given below that section being the main
question which needs to be answered by us in deciding the present appeal
and the writ petition, we shall proceed to find the answer therefore, at the
first instance.
D
Since the answer to the said question has necessarily to depend on
a proper construction to be placed by us on section 3 of the 1949 Act, as
a whole , as to its ambit and application, it could be reproduced for the
sake of easy reference and proper examination, thus :
E
'3. Levy of duty on sale of consumption of electric ene'1l)' -
Subject to the exceptions specified in section 3-A every distributor
of electrical energy and every producer shall pay every month to
the State Government at the prescribed time and in the prescribed
manner a duty calculated at the rates specified in the Table below
F on the units of electrical energy sold or supplied to a consumer or
consumed by himself for his own purposes or for purposes of his
township or colony, during the preceding month :-
TABLE
G
Rate of Duty
(1) Electrical energy sold or
supplied for consumption in
premises used -
H
STATE OF M.P. v. BIRLAJUTEMFG. CO. LTD. [VENKATACHALA, J.] 277
(a) for business, trade or 8 paise per unit of energy upto A
commercial purposes or for 50 units of energy sold or
purposes of professional persuits supplied in a month.
other than for flour mills.
10 paise per unit for each
additional unit sold or supplied B
in a month in excess of 50 units
but not in excess of 100 units Of
enacted.
12 paise per unit for such
additional unit sold or supplied c
in a month in excess of 100 units
of energy.
(b) for flour mills 2 paise per unit of energy
(2) Electrical energy sold or supp- 2 paise per unit of energy
lied for consumption in premises D
of a factory excluding energy
supplied for consumption for
domestic or non-factory pur-
poses where the connected load.
(a) does not exceed 100 H.P. 1.5 paise per unit energy. E
(b) exceeds 100 H.P. 3 paise per unit of energy.
(3) Electrical energy sold or supplied 65 paise per unit of energy upto
for purposes of illumination on 50 units of energy sold or
the occasion of marriages or supplied on any one occasion.
other social functions. F
Re. 1 per unit for each
additional unit sold or supplied
-t' on any one occasion in excess of
50 units but not in excess of 100
units of energy. G
Rs. 2.50 paise per unit for each
additional unit sold or supplied
on any one occesion in excess of
100 units of energy.
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A (4) Electrical energy sold or 10 paise per unit of energy.
supplied for consumption in -
(a) a township or colony
attached to a factory mine, or
institution; or
B (b) a premises getting supply at
high voltage or extra high voltage
but not covered under items (1)
and (2) in above.
(5) Electrical energy sold or 6.5. paise per unit of energy upto
c supplied for consumption in 50 units of energy sold or
premises and for purposes not supplied ih a month.
covered under items (1) to (4)
above.
7 paise per unit for each
D additional unit sold or supplied
in a month in excess of 50 units
but not in excess of 150 units of
energy.
12 paise per unit for each
E additional unit sold or supplied
in a month in excess of 150 units
of energy.
Provided that if the electrical energy sold or supplied for
consumption for any one purpose is used either wholly or partly,
F without the consent of the distributor of energy or producer or
electricity, as. the case may be, for consumption for any other
purpose for which a higher rate of duty is chargeable, the entire
energy sold or supplied shall be charged at the highest rate ap-
plicable.
G
Explanation - For the purpose of this section-
(a) Month means such period as may be prescribed and till
such period is prescribed, the filing month;
H (b) Premises used for business, trade, commercial purposes or
STATEOFM.P. v. BIRLAJUTEMFG. CO. LTD. [VENKATACHALA,J.] 279
for purpose of professional persuits shall include the premises A
used-
(1) for the purposes of mines to which Mines act, 1952 (No. 35
of 1952) applies;
(2) for the purposes of industries which do not require raw B
materials for marrying on the industries but which are carried on
for rendering services such as flour mill, repairs workshop and the
like and are not registered as factories under the Factories Act,
1948 (No. 63 of 1948);
(c) Factory means a factory re¢stered under the Factories Act C
1948 (No. 67 of 1948) and includes premises used for the purposes
of Industries which require raw materials for carrying on the
manufacturing process and prepare finished goods for sale."
As seen from section 3 above, duty leviable thereunder and payable D
to the State Government every month on electrical energy sold or supplied
or consumed during the preceding month is required to be calculated at
the rate per unit specified in the Table given below that section. As per
the Table, duty payable for the electrical energy sold or supplied for
consumption varies from item to item, depending upon the purpose for
which it is consumed. When Item (1) of the Table is seen, the rate of duty E
payable for electrical energy sold or supplied for consumption in a
premises covers premises used for business, trade or commercial purposes
or for purposes of professional persuits other than for flour mills. Because
of the explanation (b) to the section which says that for the purpose of the
section premises used for business, trade, commercial purpose, or for
purpose of professional persuits shall ????? the premises used for the F
purpose of mines to which the Mines Act, 1952 applies, any premises in or
adjucant to a mine which is used for processing the miners extracted from
the mine, becomes the premises covered under Item (1) of the Table.
When Item (2) of the Table is seen, the rate of duty payable for electrical
energy sold or supplied for consumption in a premises covers a factory, G
because of explanation (c) which says that for the purpose of section
factory not only means a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948,
but also includes a premises used for the purpose of industries which
require raw materials for carrying on the manufacturing process and
prepare fmished goods for sale. When Item (3) of the Table is seen, it
refers to the rate of duty payable on electrical energy sold or supplied for H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A purposes· of illumination on the occasion of marriages or other social
functions. When Item (4) of the Table is seen, it refers to the rate of duty
payable for electrical energy sold or supplied for consumption in a
township or colony attached to a factory, mine, or institution or a premises
getting supply at high voltage or extra high voltage but not covered under
Items (1) and (2) of the Table. The rates fixed in respect of electrical
B energy sold or supplied for consumption in a premises covered by Item (4)
cannot be regarded as a premises covered by Item (1) (2) of the Table
because of the specific exclusion of those items, as mentioned in Item (4)
itself. As seen from Item (5) of the Table, the rate of duty payable for
electrical energy sold or supplied for premises or purposes covered there-
C under cannot apply to premises or purposes covered in Items (1) to (4) of
the Table because of their specific exclusion as mentioned thereunder.
When the rates of duty leviable under various items in the Table are seen,
each of them applies, according to the purpose for which electrical energy
is sold or consumed. Then, comes the proviso to the Table which declares
that the electrical energy sold or supplied for consumption for any one
D purpose is used either wholly or partly, without the consent of the dis-
tributor of energy or producer of electricity, as the case may be, for
consumption for any other purpose for which a higher rate of duty is
chargeable, the entire energy sold or supplied shall be charged at the
highest rate applicable. This, proviso, therefore, expressly states that the
E rates of duty leviable for electrical energy consumed by premises of pur-
pose covered by more than one item, it is the highest rate fixed under them
which is leviable where the consumer of electrical energy does not obtain
the constant from the distributor or electrical energy or producer of
electricity for change in such user, hence, according to the proviso if
consent is obtained by the consumer of electrical energy from the dis-
F tributor of energy or producer of electricity for using electrical energy in
a premises of a factory covered by Item (2) it cannot be used for premises
covered under Item (1) and if such thing is done without obtaining such
consent, instead of lower duty payable for a premises covered under Item
(2), higher duty for a premises covered under Item (1) becomes payable.
G In other words, proviso to the Table requires that a consumer of electrical
energy must declare before such consumption as to the purpose for which
it would be consumed in the sense whether it would be consumed for the
purpose covered under Item (1) or Item (2) or Item (3) or Item (4) or Item
(5) of the Table. The requirement of the proviso when is understood in the
context of the provisions under different items, the purpose for which
H electrical energy is consumed, if falls under more than one item, the rate
STATEOFM.P. v. BIRLAJUTEMFG.CO. LTD. [VENKATACHALA,J.] 281
at which duty becomes leviable would be of the item for which highest rate · A
of duty is fixed.
If regard is had to the aforesaid analysis of section 3, its Table and
explanation, as to their ambit and applicability, can it be held that the rate
of out payable for electrical energy consumed in premises covered by Item
(2) of Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act is the rate provided for there- B
under, even where for such premises (factory), the Mines Act is made
applicable, is the question.
No doubt, as we have already pointed out a factory under clause (c)
to the explanation to section 3 since includes premises used for purposes
of industries which require raw material for carrying on the manufacturing C
process and prepare finished goods for sale, the premises of M/s. Birla Ltd.
at the mines head of their lime-stone mines of the State of Madhya Pradesh
where lime- stone boulders--<lhokas extracted from the mines are broken
into small pieces, i.e., gittis for being used in their cement factory or factory
requiring raw-material for carrying on the manufacturing process and D
prepare finished goods of cement for sale, falls within the description of
premises covered by Item (2) of the Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act.
But the question is when such premises also falls within the description of
premises covered by Item (1) because of clause (b)(l) to the Explanation
whether the duty payable for electrical energy used therein could only be
what is payable for premises under Item (2) of Table to section 3. Since a E
premises for which Mines Act is made applicable becomes a premises
covered by Item (1) of Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act which provides
for highest rate of duty leviable for electrical energy consume in such
premises question of leviability of lower duty for such consumption merely
because of that premises answering the description of premises in other
item of the Table respecting which lower duty is leviable can never arise, F
for as we have pointed out already, when once highest rate under an item
is leviable, lower rate leviable under other items is excluded. It is, therefore,
our considered view that premises covered by Item (1) to the Table to
which Mines Act is made applicable being the premises of M/s. Birla Ltd.
at their mines-site gets covered by Item (1) of Table and hence the duty G
payable for consumption of electrical energy in that premises shall be at
the rate payable for the premises covered under Item (1) of the Table to
section 3 of the 1949 Act.
Hence, the view taken by the High Court in the judgment and order
under appeal that the premises of M/s. Birla Ltd. at the mines site being H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A a factory premises covered by Item (2) of the Table to section 3 of the 1949
Act the payment of duty leviable in respect of electrical energy consumed
in that premises is covered by Item (2) of the Table, becomes unsustainable
and calls to be interfered with.
The next question which arises for ??-consideration is as to sus-
B tainability of the provisions in the Validation Act which validate the levy
of duty imposed under Item (1) to the Table to section 3 of the 1949 Act
in respect of electrical energy consumed in the premises of M/s. Birla Ltd.
at their mines site to ???? Mines Act is applicable under the 1949 Act and
in respect of similar premises of other persons of companies to which
C Mines Act is applicable.
Although learned counsel for the petitioners for the writ petitions
sought to question the provisions of the Validation Act which purport to
retrospective validate levy of duty on electrical energy consumed in their
premises under the 1949 Act because of the view taken of section 3 of the
D 1949 Act by the High Court in its judgment and order under the present
appeal, the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh sought to
support th~ sustainability of the validation Act placing reliance on the
decision of this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. H.M. T., [1975] Suppl. S.C.R. 394,
where this Court had upheld the provisions of a Validation Act by which
E duty made payable in respect of a building premises retrospectively. Prima
facie, the decision of this Court appears to support the stand of learned
counsel for the St~te. But, when the judgment and order of the High Court
under the present appeal, which is sought to be made ineffective by the
Validation Act, is held to be unsustainable by us in the present appeal, we
find it unnecessary, to examine the constitutionality of the Validation Act.
F
In the result, we not merely allow this civil appeal, set aside the
judgment and order of the High Court in W.P. No. 520 of 1980 reported
in AIR (1982) MP 225 appealed against and dismiss that writ petition, but
also dismiss the writ petition filed in this Court. No costs.
G R.A. Appeal allowed and Petition dismissed.
,·
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "electricity duty"Sign in to search