Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present petitioner No.1 i.e. Trade Centre Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. became the owners of the land in dispute pursuant to the consent decree passed by this court on 7th of may 1981 in suit No. 895 of 1981 between the original petitioner Diana Dara Sukia and the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 Jagdish Prasad is the Director of the petitioner No.1 company. It is an admitted position that by an agreement of lease dated 3rd of December 1958 the original petitioner agreed to lease the land in dispute to Messrs Standard Vacuum Oil Company for a period of 20 years with effect from 1st October 1958. The said period was to expire on 1st October 1978. The annual rent of the said land was Rs.2,200/- plus taxes. Other terms and conditions of lease were also incorporated in the agreement. It is also an admitted position that from 19th March 1962 rights and interests of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company were taken over by the Esso Standard Eastern Incorporated and therefore latter became the tenants of the said land. Under the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the right, title and interestt of the Esso Standard Eastern Incorporated stood acquired and transferred to the Union of India. Thereafter under S. 7 of the said Act the respondent No. 1 directed vesting of the said Undertaking in the Government Company i.e. Hindustan Petroleum, vide Notification dated 14th March 1974. Thus for all practical purposes the Hindustan Petroleum the respondent No. 2 became the lessees of the original petitioner. Thereafter vide letter 1st June 1978 the respondent No. 2 the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. informed the original petitioner, that they desire to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years from 1st October 1978 on the same terms and conditions. It appears that even before the receipt of this letter the original petitioner vide her letter of 2nd June 1978 informed the respondent No.2 that she desires to develop her property and has no desire to continue the lease any further. Therefore she called upon the respondent No.2 to deliver vacant possession of the said property by the end of the said period of lease. After receipt of this letter the respondent No. 2 informed her that the averments made in her notice that she wants to develop her property are false and since they have already exercised their rights under Ss. 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act, they were entitled to get the said lease renewed on the same terms and conditions. Thereafter on 1st August 1979 the original petitioner served a notice on the respondents and ultimately filed the present writ petition. Since during the pendency of this writ petition present petitioners became the owners of the property, the petition was amended and the name of the original petitioner came to be deleted. In the present petition mainly the provisions of Ss. 5(2) and 7(3) of the Act are challenged by the petitioners on several grounds.

2. Shri Paranjape the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended, that S. 5 of the Act read with S. 3 vests the Central Government with the right, title and interest in relation to the Undertaking of Esso as defined in S. 4 of the Act. S. 5(2) does not confer any statutory right on the Central Government to renew the lease. The object of Section 5(2) read with Section 7(3) is limited to the renewal of the contractual rights, if the initial agreement so provided. The said provisions are transitory in nature and were inserted in the enactment with the sole object of enabling the organisation burdened with the new rights and responsibilities to have breathing time to adjust its own affairs. S. 7(3) has also limited application. The said section has been inserted to provide breathing time to the new organisation to organise and adjust its affairs. The protection conferred by the said sections is meant for interim period only. They only confer a limited right of renewal of lease for the residuary or unexpired period with reference to the appointed date. The provisions envisage extension of the residuary period for same length of time. Thus initially Shri Paranjape wanted us to read down these provisions and to hold that Ss. 5(2) and 7(3) merely authorise renewal of lease for the unexpired period only. He also contended that the said right could be exercised after following the well established principles of natural justice.

"An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc. in relation to its undertakings in India with a view to ensuring co-ordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products distributed and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas Esso Eastern Inc. a foreign Company, is carrying on, in India, the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India Limited, and has, for that purpose, established places of business at Bombay and other places in India;

9. However, it was contended by Shri Paranjape that even if it is assumed that the present enactment was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Article 39(b), still it cannot be said that the provisions of Ss. 5(2) and 7(3) were also enacted for the said purpose. According to Shri Paranjape the said sections are not integrally connected with the said policy nor they were necessary for achieving the object of the enactment. According the learned counsel the said provisions are wholly unconnected with the object of the legislation and, therefore are not protected by the protective umbrella of Article 31C. It is not possible for us to accept this contention for more than one reason. It is by now well settled that a provision of the Act cannot be read in isolation. The enactment will have to be read as a whole and harmoniously since every section of the enactment throws light upon the another and all sections read together make out a complete scheme. The present enactment was enacted for acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc. in India for ensuring co-ordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products, so as to subserve the common good. The enactment was not enacted only for acquisition of ownership or right, title and interest of the Esso Eastern Incorporated. The enactment further contemplates acquisition of these rights for the purpose of distribution of petroleum products so as to subserve the common good. This is the part and parcel of the scheme of the enactment. Therefore if the distribution of the petroleum products to subserve the common good is one of the main purposes of the enactment, then the provisions made to subserve the said purpose are also part and parcel of the said scheme. To say the least the said provisions are integrally connected with the scheme of nationalisation. In this context reference could usefully be made to the observations of Andhra Pradesh High Court in para 12 of Mustafa Hussain's Case "Now it remains to be seen whether these provisions are so unrelated to the object of the Act or the dominant object of these provisions is to achieve an unauthorised purpose. The statement of objects and reasons of the Caltex Acquisition Act shows that in implementation of the policy for progressively securing that the ownership and control of the production of the nation's petroleum resources are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good the Government entered into negotiations with Caltex for acquiring hundred per cent of the shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited free of encumbrances and the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited. An Ordinance was promulgated by the President on 30th December 1976 and the same was replaced by the present Act. The Ordinance also provided for the continuance of the contracts entered into by the Caltex for any sale or supply in India. From this it can be seen that the supply of these products is an integral part of the State policy. A perusal of the preamble as well as the other provisions in other two enactments would also show that the object behind the State policy was to have the ownership and control over these undertakings dealing in petroleum products which are very essential and to see that the public are supplied with the same. By merely acquiring these undertakings the object cannot be achieved. It is a matter of common knowledge that these undertakings had entered into leases with numerous individuals in respect of the plots on which the supply pumps etc. were installed. Such pumps are very essential for distribution and supply of the products. All such leases and rights of tenancy were in existence on the appointed day. Unless such leases are continued for reasonable time, the very object of acquisition of these undertakings will get defeated. If one the appointed day or soon after many of the leases were about to expire then the State which has acquired these undertakings will be in a difficult position unless the Corporations created by the State are empowered to continue the leases or rights of tenancy for some more time. It is with this object that S. 5(2) and S. 7(3) of the respective Acquisition Acts are incorporated. Therefore we have no doubt whatsoever in holding that these provisions are basically and essentially necessary for giving effect to the object of the State policy. It can by no stretch of imagination be said that the dominant object of these impugned provisions is only to achieve an unauthorised purpose".