Venkatachaliah, J. - (1.) These appeals, the first two by the State Electricity Board of Maharashtra, by certificate, and the State of Maharashtra, by special leave, arise out of and, are directed against the same judgment dated 20-7-1984, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay made in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution in Misc. Petn. No. 1115 of 1977. The writ-petition before the High Court was filed by the respondent -The Thana Electricity Supply Company Limited - ('Company' for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, (Maharashtra Act No. XLIV of 1976) ("Amending Act of 1976", for short) and S. 2 of the Indian Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment and Validation) Act, 1974. Respondent-Company by its CMP of 1984 (CA No. 243 of 1985) sought certain reliefs which had been disallowed by the High Court. That CMP was treated as a petition for grant of Special Leave and Special Leave was granted on 11-1-1985. That is how CA 243 of 1985 has come to be registered.
(2.) The compass of the controversy before the High Court could broadly be indicated: The "company" became entitled, by transfer, to the benefit and privileges of the "Thana Electricity Licence 1927" granted on 14-9-1927 by the then Government of Bombay under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for supply and distribution of electricity in the areas covered by the license. the grant was originally favour of a firm of partners under the name and style 'Messrs P. Patel and Co. On 16-2-1928, respondent-company was formed as a Private Limited Company with the object of taking over the license from the said firm Messrs P. Patel and Co. Government, by its order dated 11-6-1928, consented to the transfer of the license to the said Private Limited Company. On 15-1-1965, the Private Limited Company became a Public Limited Company. The license was to expire, by efflux of time on the 21 st day of September, 1977. Cl. 11 of the license envisaged the option to the Government, usual to such grants, to purchase the undertaking on the expiration of the period of the license. The Bill for the Amending Act, 1976, was introduced in the Legislature on 13-7-1976. The State Electricity Board, by notice dated 26th of August, 1976 served on the company, exercised its option to purchase the undertaking on the expiry of the period of the. license and accordingly, required the company to sell and deliver the undertaking to the Appellant Board on the mid-night between 21st and 22nd day of September, 1977. The provisions of the Electricity Act 1910, as they stood on the day the option was exercised, would entitled the Company to be paid the "Market-Value" of the undertaking. , However on 20-9-1976, the Amending Act 1976, pursuant to the Bill introduced on 13-7-1976 became law. The Act received the assent of the President on 2nd September. 1976, and came into force with effect from 20th September, 1976, within a month of the option to purchase contained in the notice dated 26-8-1976. By this Amending Act of 1976 the principle of "Market-Value" in the relevant provisions of the 1910 Act was substituted by the concept of an "Amount" legislatively fixed as a sum equal to the depreciated Book-Value of the assets of the "undertaking" to be taken over. The Amended provisions were to govern cases where, as here, notices had been issued prior to the amendment. The Company and its share-holders challenged the Amending Act of 1976 as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31 of the Constitution. The Appellants State of Maharashtra and the State Electricity Board -claimed the protection of Article 31 -C to the Amending Act of 1976 and the consequent immunity from attack on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 31.
(3.) While the High Court rejected the appellants' claim that the impugned law had the protection of Article 31-C, it did not also accept the contention of the company as to the constitutional infirmity attributed to Section 2 of the 1974 Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the Amending Act of 1976; but the High Court declared that Section 4 of the Amending Act of 1976 was violative of Article 19(1) (f) and Article 14. The High Court rejected the contention of the 'Company' that upon the service of the Notice exercising the option to purchase, the company's right to be paid the 'market-value', under the law as it then stood, was crystallised into an "actionable claim" or a 'chose-in-action' and that what was sought to be acquired was not the 'undertaking' itself but a "chose-in-action". While the State and Electricity Board assail the correctness of the view of the High Court that Section 4 of the Amending Act of 1976 was bad, the Company, in its appeal No. CA 243 of 1985 has questioned the correctness of the Judgment on the points held against it.;