S.N Variava, J.— This civil appeal is against the judgment dated 11-1-1989 delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. By this judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the challenge of the 1st respondent to the Ordinances and Amendment Act set out hereinafter.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
On 6-2-1925 the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted to one M/s Martin & Co. a licence for supply of electric energy. This licence was subsequently transferred to the 1st respondent. One of the terms of the licence was that at the end of the licence period the Government had a right to purchase the undertaking. The licence was for a period of 50 years. The 50 years' period would thus end on 5-2-1975. On 1-2-1974 the appellant served a notice on the 1st respondent, under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called “the said Act”). By this the appellants called upon the 1st respondent to sell the undertaking to the appellant on the expiry of the period of 50 years from the commencement of the licence, i.e, at 12 o'clock in the night between 5-2-1975 and 6-2-1975.
[Ed. : Paras 3 and 4 same as in main judgment above.]
5. Thus, under Section 6(1) a notice in writing of not less than one year was to be given and the purchase price was to be determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 7-A.
[Ed. : Paras 6 and 7 same as in main judgment above.]
8. By the above-mentioned Ordinance and the Act, the amendment which was carried out was that instead of purchase price being the market value, it was now provided that the amount payable for the undertaking would be the book value of the undertaking. Thus, instead of computing the market value, there had to be computation on the book value.
[Ed. : Paras 9 and 10 same as in main judgment above.]
11. This case is entirely covered by the above-mentioned judgments. Dr Singhvi fairly conceded that this case would be covered by the above-mentioned judgments.
12. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the Division Bench dated 11-1-1989 as well as of the learned Single Judge dated 4-4-1984 are set aside. The writ petition filed by the 1st respondent stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.