Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. In the circumstances, the first point has to be answered in favour of the respondents and against the writ petitioners holding that Section 3.A as introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act, 1991 is well within the legislative competency of the State Legislature and it is intra vires of the Constitution.

21. As regards Art. 288 also, this court has considered the very same contention elaborately while examining the validity of Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 and held that Art.288 of The Constitution has no application at all. If electrical energy by any Authority established by an existing law for developing any interstate river or river valley, unless the enactment has been reserved for the consideration of the President and received the assent, there cannot be a levy on such generation, sale or distribution by that authority. Here, none of the petitioner falls under the category of interstate river or river valley authority constituted by an Act of Parliament, nor the petitioners consumed power sold by such river valley authority or constituted by interstate river or river valley authority so that they could claim that levy without consent of the President is prohibited by Art.228 and therefore, it is invalid. This is not the case here.

22. It is not open to the petitioners to invoke Art.288. The generation or sale or distribution of electrical energy in the present case is not by any interstate river or river valley authority constituted by an enactment of Parliament and therefore no reliance could be placed upon Art.288. In the present case, the generation and sale of electrical energy is by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board or it is a generation and consumption by the consumers themselves in their own generating plants or captive generators and therefore invocation of Art.288 is a misconception and it cannot be relied upon. In the circumstances the point has to be answered in favour of the respondents and against the writ petitioners.