- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.P State Electricity Board v. Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The U.P. State Electricity Board (“the Board”) purchased the undertaking of Banaras Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. (“the Company”) under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Disputes arose over the quantum and mode of assessing the purchase money. The Company, invoking Section 52 of the 1910 Act, unilaterally appointed an arbitrator. The Board objected, citing the Indian Electricity (U.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975, which introduced Section 7-A(6) and mandated that a State-appointed “Special Officer” alone could determine the purchase price under Section 7-AA, calculated on the book value of the undertaking.
Earlier, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Supply Co. (AIR 1988 Cal 336) had struck down the Amendment and Validation Act as unconstitutional and held that purchase price must be based on market value. Relying on this precedent, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the Company’s appointment of an arbitrator and gave the Board limited time to nominate its own arbitrator. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the 1975 Amendment and Validation Act, the Company could validly appoint an arbitrator under Section 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to determine the purchase price.
- Whether the Special Officer appointed by the State Government had exclusive jurisdiction to assess the purchase money on the “book value” basis prescribed by Section 7-AA.
- Whether the Division Bench decision in Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Supply Co. (AIR 1988 Cal 336) remained good law in light of later Supreme Court rulings.
Arguments of the Parties
Board’s Arguments
- The 1975 Amendment and Validation Act expressly confers exclusive jurisdiction on the State-appointed Special Officer to determine the purchase price (Section 7-A(6)).
- Under the amended scheme, purchase price must be assessed on the book value of the undertaking, not market value.
- Consequently, any appointment of an arbitrator under Section 52 of the unamended 1910 Act is without authority and void.
Company’s Arguments
- The Company relied on the Division Bench ruling in Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Supply Co. that declared the Amendment and Validation Act unconstitutional and required assessment on market value.
- On that premise, the Company asserted its right to invoke Section 52 and appoint an arbitrator to decide the purchase price.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. v. Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 481 | Upheld constitutionality of the Amendment and Validation Act; affirmed exclusive role of Special Officer. | Relied upon as binding authority to overrule the High Court’s contrary view. |
| State of U.P. v. Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 481 at 488 | Same principle as above; applied Tinsukhia ratio to U.P. amendments. | Further reinforced validity of statutory scheme; followed. |
| Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709 (Constitution Bench) | Laid down that statutory mechanisms for valuation of electricity undertakings are constitutionally valid. | Formed the constitutional foundation for upholding the U.P. Amendment. |
| Maharashtra SEB v. Thana Electric Supply Co., (1989) 3 SCC 616 | Approved book-value method for compensation under similar state amendments. | Cited as persuasive support for the statutory valuation method. |
| Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. State of T.N., (1989) 4 SCC 138 | Sustained comparable state legislation and book-value compensation. | Used to demonstrate consistent judicial approach across states. |
| U.P. SEB v. Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., AIR 1988 Cal 336 (DB) | Held Amendment and Validation Act unconstitutional; favoured market-value compensation. | Expressly declared “no longer good law” and overruled. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that a three-Judge Bench in Agra Electric Supply and Banaras Electric Light had already upheld the constitutionality of the U.P. Amendment and Validation Act, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tinsukhia. Those rulings necessarily displaced the earlier Calcutta High Court decision in Upper Jumna Valley.
Consequently, the statutory scheme introduced by Sections 7-A(6) and 7-AA confers exclusive competence on the Special Officer to assess purchase money based on book value. Any arbitral appointment under Section 52 of the unamended 1910 Act is therefore beyond jurisdiction. An award rendered by such an arbitrator would be non est.
The Court noted that, by the time of hearing, the Special Officer had already completed the assessment. This rendered the controversy largely academic, but the Court still needed to correct the legal error in the impugned judgment.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED; JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE. The writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment; no order as to costs.
Immediate effect: The Special Officer’s assessment—made on book-value principles—remains the only valid determination of purchase price. The Company’s arbitrator lacks authority, and any award already rendered is void. Broader implication: the decision re-affirms, but does not newly establish, the constitutional validity of state legislation channeling valuation disputes to a statutory officer rather than private arbitration.
D.P Mohapatra, J.— The controversy raised in these appeals relates to the validity of appointment of arbitrator by Banaras Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. (for short “the Company”), the respondent herein. The High Court of Calcutta having upheld the appointment made by the Company and extended the time for submission of award, repelling the objections raised by U.P State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”), the Board filed these appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.
2. The short résumé of the facts of the case relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy may be stated thus: the appellant Board, in exercise of its power under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short “the 1910 Act”) purchased the undertaking of the respondent Company. Certain disputes having arisen regarding the mode of assessment of the purchase money to be paid by the Board to the Company, the Company appointed an arbitrator purportedly under Section 52 of the 1910 Act. The objection raised by the Board against such appointment was based on the amendments introduced in the 1910 Act by the Indian Electricity (U.P Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (for short “the Amendment and Validation Act”). It was the contention of the Board that in view of the specific provisions made in Section 7-A(6) of the 1910 Act the Special Officer appointed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh alone has the jurisdiction to assess the net amount payable to the Company as purchase money. The Special Officer was to make the assessment in accordance with the provisions in Section 7-AA of the Amendment and Validation Act. It was the further contention of the Board that in view of such specific statutory provisions in the Amendment and Validation Act, it was not open to the Company to appoint the arbitrator under Section 52 of the 1910 Act. It may be relevant to state here that the core controversy between the parties was whether the purchase price payable to the Company was to be assessed on the basis of market value of the undertaking on the date of takeover as contended by the Company or the assessment was to be made on the basis of book value of the undertaking as it was contended by the Board.
3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of U.P SEB v. Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. AIR 1988 Cal 336 (DB) had declared the Amendment and Validating Acts as unconstitutional, being discriminatory and violative of Articles 19(1)(f), 31 and 14. The High Court had held that the price had to be paid as per market value prevailing on the date of taking over of the undertaking.
4. When the writ petitions giving rise to the present appeals came up before the Court, learned Single Judge following the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench held, inter alia, that since it was held by the Division Bench that the provisions of the Amendment and Validation Act were unconstitutional, the contention raised on behalf of the Board that the Special Officer appointed by the State Government has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the purchase money could not be accepted. Consequentially, the learned Single Judge held that Section 52 of the 1910 Act was applicable in the case and no exception could be taken to the appointment of arbitrator by the Company. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions giving option to the Board to exercise its right to appoint its arbitrator failing which the arbitrator appointed by the Company will proceed with the reference as the sole arbitrator and publish his award. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in these appeals.
5. The question regarding validity of the provisions of the Amendment and Validation Act has been set at rest by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the cases of State of U.P v. Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 481 and State of U.P v. Banaras Electricity Light and Power Co. Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 481 at p. 488 in which this Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (1989) 3 SCC 709 upheld the validity of the Act/Ordinance and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was set aside. A similar view was taken by this Court in Maharashtra SEB v. Thana Electric Supply Co. (1989) 3 SCC 616 and Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. State of T.N (1989) 4 SCC 138
6. In view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the aforementioned cases, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of U.P SEB v. Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Co. Ltd. AIR 1988 Cal 336 (DB) has to be held to be no longer good law and consequentially the judgment under challenge in which the learned Single Judge followed the said decision cannot be sustained. The resultant position is that the Special Officer appointed by the State Government is the only competent authority to assess the amount of purchase money to be paid by the Board to the Company and such assessment is to be made on the book value of the undertaking. The arbitrator appointed by the Company has no authority to undertake such exercise. The award, if any, passed by such arbitrator is non est. It was stated by learned counsel for both the parties in course of hearing of the case before us that in the meantime the Special Officer appointed by the State Government has already made the assessment of the purchase money to be paid by the Board to the Company and has passed his order; therefore, the controversy raised in these appeals has lost its relevance.
7. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeals are allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of this judgment. There will be no order for costs.
Alert