Case: Maharashtra State Electricity Board And Thestate Of Maharas Vs. Nagpur Electric Light And Power Company Ltd.&amp; Anr

printing mistake and the true word was on. The other interpretation was that two dates had been provided for the exercise of the option; one, the expiration of ten years from Amy 6, 1947, the other being May 4, 1957. Thus there were genuine doubts about the real date and if the State Government sought to clarify the point it cannot be said that it made an unreasonable demand on the licensee. Every licensee, under the Electricity Act, 1910 or the earlier Act, knew that the statute gave an option to the State Government or a local authority or some board to purchase, and that option had to be exercised after the expiration of certain periods mentioned in the license. So it was not a case where Government was providing for the option to purchase which was not originally intended to be given. We are unable to appreciate the opinion of the High Court that the "amendment effected in 1966 stating that the option to purchase under the act shall be exercisable on the expiration of the period of ten years on 4-5-1967, is saying something which is meaningless and unenforceable." The High Court seems to think that the period of 10 years starting with the commencement of that period on May 6, 1947 could never end on May 4, 1957. But this was exactly the reason why the amendment was sought to be made in the license. May 6, 1947 was a date which had no relevance once the amendments of 1947 are taken into consideration. The amendments of 1947 all the time speak of May 4, 1947 and not May 6, 1947. The date May 6, 1947 wad derived by the following process of reasoning. The original license provide4d that "the right to purchase (para (g)) the undertaking, in respect of which the license is granted, shall for the purposes of the provisions in this behalf contained in the said Act endure after the following periods, that is to say:-"(i) after 42 years from the commencement of this Licence. (ii) After every subsequent period of 10 years. The terms of such purchase as aforesaid shall be those set forth in Section 7 of the Act." Para 4 of the original license provided that "this License shall come into force and have effect upon the day when a notification confirming it is published in the Central Provinces Gazette, and that day shall for the purpose of the said Act be deemed to be the commencement of this License. " It is this Para 4 that created the difficulty because although the notification is dated Amy 4, 1905, it was published on May 6, 1905. But when the license was amended in 1947 with the consent of the licensee it proceeded on the basis that the 42 years period expired on May 3, 1947, because throughout the crucial effective date in the amendments is May 4, 1947. 14. It seems to us that after the amendments Para 4 of the original license ceased to have effect for the purposes of construing the license as amended in 1947 and subsequently. 15. This takes us to the question whether the notice dated April 26, 1966 is in accordance with law. For the sake of convenience we may set out clause 3, paragraph (o) (I) as amended:"3 (o) (I) The option of purchase given by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act shall be exercisable on the expiration of the period of ten years on the 4th May 1957, and the expiration of every subsequent period of ten years during the continuance of this license." 16. It is the case of the licensee that the date in the notice, viz, the midnight of 3/4th May, 1967, is not in compliance with law and the terms of the license. 17. Mr. Sorabjee further submitted the following propositions:(i) A day is regarded as indivisible period and the law does not regard fraction of a day; (ii) Person for whose benefit period is prescribed is entitled to the benefit of the entire period. (iii) Day of the happening of an event or the doing of an Act ought to be excluded rather than included. (iv) Notice under Section 6 is a condition precedent and must be strictly construed. He also referred to us some authorities in support of these propositions. We need not quarrel with these propositions but the first three must be regarded as ordinary principles of constructions and yield to the wording and the context of the instrument. 18. It seems to us that if Cl. 3, paragraph (o) (I) is interpreted in the light of the rest of the amendments made in the license in 1947, it is quite clear that the previous period was deemed to have expired on May 3, 1947 and the fresh period started on 1947 and the fresh period started on May 4, 1947 and the subsequent periods of 10 years ended on May 3, 1957 and May 3, 1967. It is impossible to read the license as amended in 1947 in any way other than that it was agreed that the period of 10 years mentioned in the license would start from May 4, 1947. The details of distribution system (Para 2) extracted above), the valuation of assets as on May 4, 1947 and other clauses extracted above all point to this conclusion. 19. It was pointed out that the license still talked of Section 7 of the Electricity Act. Why was this not amended when it was under Section 6, as inserted in 1959, that the option to purchase became exercisable? It seems to us that it was rightly not amended because the license still provided for the starting of the period of 10 years from May 4, 1947. This could only be provided for while the old Section 7 stood. 20. It seems to us that the notice dated April 26, 1966 was in accordance with the terms of the licence and the law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. It seems to us that after the amendments Para 4 of the original license ceased to have effect for the purposes of construing the license as amended in 1947 and subsequently18. It seems to us that if Cl. 3, paragraph (o) (I) is interpreted in the light of the rest of the amendments made in the license in 1947, it is quite clear that the previous period was deemed to have expired on May 3, 1947 and the fresh period started on 1947 and the fresh period started on May 4, 1947 and the subsequent periods of 10 years ended on May 3, 1957 and May 3, 1967. It is impossible to read the license as amended in 1947 in any way other than that it was agreed that the period of 10 years mentioned in the license would start from May 4, 1947. The details of distribution system (Para 2) extracted above), the valuation of assets as on May 4, 1947 and other clauses extracted above all point to this conclusion19. It was pointed out that the license still talked of Section 7 of the Electricity Act. Why was this not amended when it was under Section 6, as inserted in 1959, that the option to purchase became exercisable? It seems to us that it was rightly not amended because the license still provided for the starting of the period of 10 years from May 4, 1947. This could only be provided for while the old Section 7 stood20. It seems to us that the notice dated April 26, 1966 was in accordance with the terms of the licence and the law.