State of Uttar Pradesh vs Banaras Electricity Light and Power Company and Others
- SCC(2001) 9 SCC 203
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where two legislative enactments deal with the same subject matter and provide different approaches to solving the problem, and one is enacted by Parliament while the other is a State law, the Parliament Act prevails and the conflicting provisions of the State law are impliedly repealed under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, even where the laws do not directly collide in the sense that one prohibits what the other requires.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BENCH: KULDIP SINGH & M.M. PUNCHHI & N.P. SINGH & M.K. MUKHERJEE & S. SAGHIR AHMAD
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 (9) SCC 203
With Civil Appeal No. 1366 of 1975
The Order of the Court was as follows :
The question before the High Court was whether Section 3 of the U.P. Electricity (Temporary Powers of Control) Act, 1947, was repugnant to Sections 57 and 57-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as amended by the Amending Act 101 of 1956 and Section 22-B of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by Central Act 32 of 1959. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative on the following reasoning :
"The two legislations are, in our view, 'in respect of the same matter' within the meaning of Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The two legislations provided a different approach and a different kind of a solution to the problem of fixing fair prices. Even though they do not, strictly speaking, collide with each other in the sense that one asks for something to be done, which the other may prohibit, yet they being in respect of the same matter, both cannot remain in operation (see State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co. One will have to fall, under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Since the Parliament Act of 1956 was not an earlier law in relation to the Temporary Act of 1947, it will prevail, and the offending provisions of the 1947 Act will stand repealed. In view of the repugnancy, clause (aa) of Section 3(2) and the overlapping part of Section 3(1) of the Temporary Act of 1947 must be deemed repealed by implication. The various orders passed by the State Government under that provision were without the authority of law."
We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. Consequently CA No. 1368 of 1975 is also dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free