Appeal No 2526 of 1966
590 Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 30 31 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No
1098 of 1962
 CK Daphtary Attorney General and 1
N Shroff for the appellant
MC Chagla RM Vin and R Gopalakrishnan for resportdent No 1
RH Dhebar and SK Dholakia for respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the notice issued by the appellant on June 23 1961 under section 6 of the as amended by Act 32 of 1959 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act is valid
The High Court has come to the conclusion that it is not a valid notice
On 4th January 1923 the father of respondent No 1 was granted a licence to supply electric energy within the area consisting of municipal limits of Dabhoi and the territories comprised within half mile radius from the municipal boundary lines by the Government of Baroda under the Baroda Electricity Act Samvat 1964 Act 1 of 1964
The said Company was known as Dabhoi Electricity Company
Respondent No 1 was at all material times the holder of this licence
The said licence conferred an option on the Government to purchase the undertaking in accordance with the terms of the licence
Clause 26a of that licence is material for our present purpose
That clause reads The option of purchase given by section 8 of the Act shall be exercisable on the expiration of 40 years computed from the commencement of this licence and thereafter on the expiration of every subsequent period of 8 years during the subsistence of this licence   On the merger of Baroda State with the then Province of Bombay the and the Indian Electri city Supply Act 1948 were made applicable to the territories of the former State of Baroda and the corresponding Baroda Act was repealed with the saving clause that the licenoes issued under the repealed Act shall continue to remain in force until the expiration of the period of licence as if they were issued under Act of 1910
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the India  the State Government constituted the appellant Corporation
The appellant served upon resport 591 dent No 1 a notice on June 23 1961
That notice is important for our present purpose
Hence we shall quote the same in full
It is as follows  THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Kothi Building Raopura Road Baroda Dated 23 June 1961
AD Ref
No PLEBRD7A 19648
To The Dabhoi Electric Power Supply Co Co Shri Girdharlal Motilal Contractor Sheth Ajit Bungalow Pratapnagar Society Baroda
SUB i Notice under section 6 of the and exercise of option vested in the Gujarat Electricity Board to purchase your undertaking
ii The Dabhoi Electric Licenee 1923 granted by the Government of Baroda under the State Electricity Act Samvat 1964
Dear Sir In exercise of the powers conferred on the Gujarat Electricity Board by virtue of section 71 of the  read together with section 6 of the  as amended by the Indian Electricity Amendment Act 1959 32 of 1959 this is to give you notice that the Gujarat Electricity Board has decided to exercise and shall exercise the option of purchasing your undertaking on 3 1 1963 the date on which the license granted to you by the Government of Baroda expires
The receipt of this notice may please be acknowledged
Yours faithfully Sd Secretary The Gujarat Electricity Board
 As this notice was issued after the was amended by Act 32 of 1959 we have to see whether that notice complies with the requirements of section 61a of the Act which says Where a license has been granted to any person not being a local authority the State Electricity Board shall a in the case of a license granted before the commencement of the Indian Electricity Amend 592 ment Act 1959 on the expiration of each such period as is specified in the license  have the option of purchasing the undertaking and such option shall be exercised by the State Electricity Board serving upon the licensee a notice in writing of not less than one year requiting the licensee to sell the undertaking to it at the expiry of the relevant period referred to in this sub section
 These provisions confer a power on the State Electricity Board to purchase the property of the licensee but that right can be exercised only in the manner provided in the Act and not in any other way
It must be remembered that the provisions in question empower the State Electricity Board to interfere with the property rights of the licensee
Therefore such a power will have to be strictly construed
The legislature has prescribed a mode for the exercising of that power and hence that power can be exercised only in that manner and in no other manner
See Nazir Ahmad vs King Emperor1 and Ballavdas Agarwala vs Shri SC ChakravartY2
Before the option to purchase the undertaking can be exercised the State Electricity Board must call upon the licensec by means of a notice in writing within the period mentioned in section 6 1  to sell the undertaking to it on the expiration of the period for which licence was given
The impugned notice does not require the licensec to sell the undertaking
It merely notifies the respondent that the appellant Board has decided to exercise and shall exercise the option of purchasing the respondent s undertaking on 3 1 1963 the date on which the licence granted to him by the Government of Baroda expired
It was contended by the learned Attorney General on behalf of the appellant that in matters like these rigid compliance with the provisions of law should not be insisted upon
According to him if the legal requirements are substantially satisfied the validity of the notice given should be upheld
Proceeding further he urged that so long as the notice given by the Electricity Board is sufficient to intimate the licensee the intention of the Board the mandate of the law is complied with in a notice under section 61 what is of the essence is the substance of the matter mentioned therein and not the manner in which the notice is worded
He urged that the licensee must have imported some commonsense into the notice received by him and he could not be allowed to  riggle out of his obligation by having recourse to technicalities
In advancing these arguments
the learned Attorney General overlooked the fact that notice required by section 6 1  is not a notice of an action to be taken or merely a procedural step
It is a mode 1 LR 63 IA 372
2  593 of exercising the power conferred on the State Electricity Board by the exercise of which the property rights of the licensees can be affected
Section 6 1  confers power on the State Electricity Board to take away the property of the licensec
Such a power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law
The legislature has prescribed the manner of its exercise
It must exercise in that manner and in no other way
It must also be seen that the Parliament deliberately changed the form of the nonce to be given from what it was before Act 32 of 1959 was
enacted
It prescribed that the notice must specifically call upon the licensee to sell the undertaking
The mandate of the law is clear and it must be obeyed
We agree with Mr MC Chagla learned Counsel for the licensee that the issuing of a notice strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 6  1  is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power conferred on the State Electricity Board to purchase the undertaking
That being so we must hold that section 6 1  is mandatory and it must be strictly complied with
In this case we are not satisfied that the requirements of law have at least been substantially complied with
Obviously the person who issued the notice was not familiar with the legal position
He appears to be under the misapprehension that section 71 of the was still in operation when he gave the notice
He appears to have been in two minds
He was not sure whether he should issue the notice under the provisions of the Act as they stood  on the date of the notice or in accordance with the provisions as they were prior to the coming into force of Act 32 of 1959
At the top of the notice it is mentioned that it is given under section 6 of the Act but in the body of the notice it is purported to be given in exercise of the power available under section 71 of the Indian 
Again the contents of notice indicate that it is a notice under section 7  1  read with section 7  4  of the as they stood prior to 1959
Quite clearly the notice speaks in two voices
It is the product of a confused mind
We fail to see how any commonsense can be read into it
On reading that notice the licensec could not have been definite whether the State Electricity Board purported to exercise the power under the law as it was
on the date of the notice or as it was under the unamended Act
Rights and liabilities of the Electricity Board and the licensec before Act 32 of 1959 came into force are substantially different from their rights and liabilities under the Act
On reading the impugned notice it could not have been clear to the licensee that he had been called upon to sell the undertaking in accordance with the law as it then stood
We are unable to accede to the request of the Attorney General to read into the notice words which are not there
594 For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore we agree with the High Court that the impugned notice is invalid and by virtue of that notice the appellant cannot compel the respondents to sell the undertalcing in question
Accordingly this appeal fails and the same
is dismissed with RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent held a licenee granted by the Government of Baroda under the Baroda Electricity Act 1 of 1964 to supply electric energy within certain defined territories
On June 23 1961 the appellant which was constituted under section 5 of the Indian  served a notice on the respondent to the effect that in exercise of the powers conferred on it by virtue of section 71 of the read together with section 6 Qf the  as amended by the Indian Electricity Amendment Act 32 of 1959 the appellant
had decided to and would exercise the option to purchase the respondent s undertaking on 3 1 1963 ie the date on which the licenee was due to expire
The respondent challenged the validity of this notice and the High Court held the notice was invalid
On appeal to this Court
HELD The High Court was right in holding that the impugned notice Was invalid and by virtue of that notice the appellant could not compel the respondent to sell the undertaking
594 A Before the option to purchase the undertaking can be exercised the State Electricity Board must call upon the licensec by means of a notice in writing within the period mentioned in section 6 1  to sell the undertaking to it on the expiration of the period for which the licenee was given
The impugned notice did not require the licensec to sell the undertaking
It merely notified the respondent that the appellant Board has decided to exercise and would exercise the option of purchasing the respondent s undertaking on the date of expiry of the licenee
592 D E Nazir Ahmad vs King Emperor LR 63 IA 372 and Ballavdas Agarwala vs Shri SC Chakravarty 1960 2 SCR 739 referred to
There was no force in the contention that the notice complied substantially with the requirements of the law and should therefore be given effect to
The issuing of a notice strictly in accordance with the provisions section 61 which prescribes that the notice must specifically call upon the licensec to sell the undertaking is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power conferred on the State Electricity Board to purchase the undertaking
Furthermore on reading the impugned notice the licensec could not have been definite whether the appellant Board purported to exercise the power under the law as it was on the date of the notice ie the as amended by Act 32 of 1959 or as it was under the unamended act
The rights and liabities of the Electricity Board and the licensee before Act 32 of 1959 came into force were SUbstantially different from those after the amendment
593 C G