# THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 1 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960-10-03 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, c. J. ' K. SUBBA RAO, N. Rajagqpala Ayyangar, J. R~ Mudholkar, T. L. . Venkatarama Ayyar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-supreme-court-reports-the-calcutta-gas-company-proprietary-ltd-v-the-state-2370 - **Pages:** 20 ## Headnote · GaB and gas-works-Enactment by State LegislatureOonBtitutional validity-Writ Petition -Locus standi-Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960 (W.B. 15 of 1960), s. 4-0onstitution of India Arts. 226, 246, Sch. VI~, List II, Entries 24,25. By an agreement entered into by the appellant company and the Oriental Gas Company, the appellant was appointed as Manager of the later company which owned an industrial undertaki'ng for the manufacture and sale of fuel gas in Calcutta with the right to receive n~rr1uneration as specified in the agreement. The West Bengal Legislature passed the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960, and s.4 of that Act provided that the said undertaking shall stand transferred to the St>te Government for five years for management and control. On October 3, 1960, the State Government issued three no:ifications One of which appointed October 7, 1960, as the date on and from which the management and control of the said undertaking would be taken over by it. The appellant by a petition under Art. 226 of the Comtitution impugned the constitutional validity of the said Act and sou~ht for appropriate writs restraining the State Government for giving effect to it and for quashing the said notifications. The High Court found again~t the petitioner and rejected the petition. ·Held, th1t the State L~gislature had the competence to enact the impugned Act and its constitutional -validity . was beyond question. Article 226 of the Constitution confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and '\-\Tits not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but other legal rights as well. Since the appellant's lawful rights under t\le agreement had been abrid~ed, if not wholly destroyed, by the impugned Act, it had the locus • .,tandii'. to apply under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The State of Orissa v. Madan Go,,,al Rungta, [1952] S.C.R. 28 and Ohiranjit Lnl Ohoudhuri v. The Union of India, [1950] S. C.R. 869, referred to. · 1 . 1962 FebmaryS. 1962 Tiu C:11lc'u1ta Ga11 Com/iauy P1cprietorJ) lt1l. v ?'ht Stau of U·' est Btrigal S11bha I ao J. 2 SUPRE:\IE OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1'hc entries in the three Legislative Lists arr. only lcgisa lativc hcadS or fields of legislation that den1arcatc the area over which the appropriate legislature operates and it is \\'Cll settled that tl1e .language of the entries should be widely construed. If any entries overlap or are in direct conflict \Vith each other, C\'cry attempt should he 1nadc to harmonise thc1n, \Vhether the fntrics belong to the same List or different "List-;, so that no entry may be robbed of its entire content and made nugatory. In re tl;c Central l'ro1~inceR and Berar .1ct, h"o. XI\,. of 1933, [1939] F. C.R. 18 and Stale of Bonzl,ay ,._ .\"orothamdas Jethabhai, [1951] S. C.R. 51, rcfcrrecl to. So construed Entry 24 of List II which is in apparent conflict \Vith Entry 25 of the !'a.me list, must be he'.d to cover all industries in a State except Ga" and (;as•\\·orks \\'hich arc specifically dealt "·ith by F.n°try 2'i anrl exclusively a!lotted to it. It is clear that the express intention of the Constitution \Va'\ to carve out Ga~ and Gas-\vorks industry from F.ntrv 24 ante Government for five years for management and control. On October 3, 1960, the State Government issued three no:ifications One of which appointed October 7, 1960, as the date on and from which the management and control of the said undertaking would be taken over by it. The appellant by a petition under Art. 226 of the Comtitution impugned the constitutional validity of the said Act and sou~ht for appropriate writs restraining the State Government for giving effect to it and for quashing the said notifications. The High Court found again~t the petitioner and rejected the petition. ·Held, th1t the State L~gislature had the competence to enact the impugned Act and its constitutional -validity . was beyond question. Article 226 of the Constitution confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and '\-\Tits not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but other legal rights as well. Since the appellant's lawful rights under t\le agreement had been abrid~ed, if not wholly destroyed, by the impugned Act, it had the locus • .,tandii'. to apply under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The State of Orissa v. Madan Go,,,al Rungta, [1952] S.C.R. 28 and Ohiranjit Lnl Ohoudhuri v. The Union of India, [1950] S. C.R. 869, referred to. · 1 . 1962 FebmaryS. 1962 Tiu C:11lc'u1ta Ga11 Com/iauy P1cprietorJ) lt1l. v ?'ht Stau of U·' est Btrigal S11bha I ao J. 2 SUPRE:\IE OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1'hc entries in the three Legislative Lists arr. only lcgisa lativc hcadS or fields of legislation that den1arcatc the area over which the appropriate legislature operates and it is \\'Cll settled that tl1e .language of the entries should be widely construed. If any entries overlap or are in direct conflict \Vith each other, C\'cry attempt should he 1nadc to harmonise thc1n, \Vhether the fntrics belong to the same List or different "List-;, so that no entry may be robbed of its entire content and made nugatory. In re tl;c Central l'ro1~inceR and Berar .1ct, h"o. XI\,. of 1933, [1939] F. C.R. 18 and Stale of Bonzl,ay ,._ .\"orothamdas Jethabhai, [1951] S. C.R. 51, rcfcrrecl to. So construed Entry 24 of List II which is in apparent conflict \Vith Entry 25 of the !'a.me list, must be he'.d to cover all industries in a State except Ga" and (;as•\\·orks \\'hich arc specifically dealt "·ith by F.n°try 2'i anrl exclusively a!lotted to it. It is clear that the express intention of the Constitution \Va'\ to carve out Ga~ and Gas-\vorks industry from F.ntrv 24 anws affecting gas and μaswork ; and (!i) even if the Act. i!leidentally trnnches upon any produetion 1rnpect, th<: pith and substance of the legislation is iras ancl ~:t'·work withiu tho meaning of entry 25 of List II. The l~arnccl ,Judge~ ·rcjcotcd. all tho contentions of the appellant and dismissed tho petition by his order nd thi>t, as its rights were preserved by s. 4 of the impugned Act, it has no locus stand; to file the petition under Art. 226. The first question that falls to be considered is whether the appellant has lows standi to file tho petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The argument of le&rnod counsel for the rPspondenl~~ is that the appellant was only managing the induHtry and it had no proprietary right therein and, therefore, it could not maintain, the application. Article 226 confers a very wide powor on the High Court to issue directionH and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. It is, thPrefore, clear 1 hat persons other than those claiming fundamental right can also approach the eourt seeking a reliefth'"rcunder. The Article in terms docs not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder ; but it is implicit in tho exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. In The Swte of Ori-~8a v. illadan Gop"l Runyta( ')this Court has ruled that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercisn of jurisdiction of the court under Art. 226 of the Consti. tution. In Chiranjit La/, Chowrlhuri v. The l.:nion of {wlu1 ('), it has been held by this Court. that the legal right that can be enforced under Art. :l2 must orc!inarily be tho right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the court for relief. We do not see any reason why a different principle should apply in the case of a (I) (1952] s C.R. 28. (2) (195-0J s.c.R. 869. I ) > • . ) 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution .. The right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the peti tioll.er himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto thi'J rule may have to be relaxed or modified. The question, therefore, is whether in the present case the petitioner has a legal right, and whether it has been in· fringed by the contesting respondent.s. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated July 24, 1948, with respondent No. 5 in regard to the management of the Oriental Gas Company. Under the agreement, the appellant was appointed as Manager and the general management of the affairs of the Company was entrusted to it for a period ofJ!O years. The appellant would receive thereundf'_ by way of remuneration for its services, (a) an office .allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem, (b) a commissron of IO per cent, on the net yearly profit of the Company, subject to a minimum of Rs. 60,000/· per year in the case of absence of or inadequacy of profits and (c) a commission of Re. I/- per ton of all coal purchased and negotiated by the Manager. In its capacity as Manager, the appellant-Company was put in charge of the entire business and its assets in India and it was given all the incidental powers necessary for the said management. Under the agreement, therefore, the appellant had the right to manage the Oriental Gas C0mpany for a period of 20 years and to receive the aforesaid amounts toward its· remuneration for its services. Section 4 of the impugned Act reads: "With effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years thereafter,- (a) the undertaking of the Company shall stand transferred to the State Governmfclnt for the purpose of management and control ; · 1962 The 0 arcutea Gas company. (Proprietary) Ltrl. v. The State ·of West.Bangal Suhba Rao J. 1962 Tht Caladla Gas Companl (l'rofJritlarJ) l.Jd. v. Tit Stal< of W11t Bengal Sub6a Raa J. 8 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [1962] StJl>l'. 'b) the C Jmpany and its agents, includin01 managing agents, if any, and servant shail cease to exercise management or control in relation to the undertaking of thl' Company; I c) all contracts, excluding any contract or contracts in respect of agency or managing agency, subsisting immediately before the appointed day and affecting the undertaking of the Company shall cease to have l'ffoct or to be enforeeable against the Company, its agents or :lny person who was a surety thereto or had guaranteed the performance thereof and shall be of ai; full forre and effect against or in favo~· of the State of West Bonga! and shall be enforceable as fully and effectively as if instead of the Company the State of West Bengal had been named therein or had boon a party thereto:" Under tho said section, with effect from the appointed day and for a period of five years thREMlll COUR1' RlllFORTS 9 s. 4 of the impugned Act, it was deprived of that right for a period of five years. There was cert'.linly a · legal right accruing to the appellant under the agreement and that was abridged, if not destroyed, by the impugned Act. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the legal right of the appellant was not infringed by the provisions of the impugned Act. In the circumstances, as the appellant's personal right to manage the Company and to receive remuneration therefor had been infringed by tho provisions of the statute, it had wcus standi to file the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. To appreciate the rival contentions in regard to the other points, it would be convenient and necessary to notice briefly the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, hereinafter called the "Central Act.", and the impugned Act. The Central Act was passed, as its long . title shows, to provide for the development and regulation of certain industries. Under s. 2 of the Central Act, it is declared that it is expedient in the publio interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Under beading 2 of the First Schedule, item (3) is "fuel gases-( coal gas, natural gas and the like)". "Industrial undertaking" is defined to mean any undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on in one or more factories .by any person or authority including Government ; and / "factory" is defined to mean any premises, including the precincts thereof, in any part of which a manufacturing process is. being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on. Section 9 authorizes the Government to levy and collect a cess from the industries : Chapter III provides for the regulation of scheduled industries : section 15 empowers the Government to make or cause to be made a full and complete investigation of the affairs of any scheduled industry, if it is of opinion that there is a likelihood of substantial fall in the volume of 1962 The Calcutta & as Company ( ProprietaTy) Ltd. v. The Siate of West Bengal Subba Rao J, /962 Tlia Calcutta (}as Comparrp (Propritl·iry) Ltd. v. Tht Statt of JV est Rtn.,al Subb11 Rao J. iO SUPR~~IE COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. production or a marked deterioration in the quality of any article produced, or there is likely to bo a ri~e in the price of any article produced, therein, or that an undertaking is being managed in a manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned; and s. HJ authorizes the Central Government, after making the said investigation to issue such directions to the industrial undertaking or undertakings concerned as may he appropriate in the circumstances in order to regulate the production of any article or articles and fi:ic the standards of production, to require it to take such steps to stimulate the development of the industry, to prohibit from resorting to any act or practice which might reduce its production capacity or economic value, or to control the prices or regulate the distribution of articles produced therein· Chapter IIIA confers power on the Central Government to assume management or control of an industrial undertaking in cortain cases: section J8A enables it to htke control of an industrial undertaking, ands. 18H(l), in~r al·ia, provides that on the issue of the notified order nuder s. 18A, all persons in charge of management, including persons holdin" oJfice as managers or directors of the industrial und~rtaking immediately before the issue of the notified order shall he deemed to have vacated their offices as such, aud that any contr~ct of managem•rnt between the industrial undertakmg and any managing agf,nt or any director th~rcof holding ofEce as such immediately before the issue of the notified order shaJI be deemed to have been · terminated and the person or persons appointed under th~ Act shall be empowered to take over the management and condu'.•t the affairs of the Company in the place of the previous management. · qiapter IIIB enables tho Central Government for securmg the equitable distribution and availability a.t fair prices of any article or class of articles relatahlf_' to any hanrecetd · industry, and for controllmg and . ugsdlciuJg the supply, distribution, and price, of the 1 "" .. • :I s.C.R. SUPR)!jM:i): COURT REPORTS 11 said articles. Section 20 of the A ct declares that aft.er the commencement of·the Act, it shall not lie competent for any State Government or. a local authority to take over the management or control of any industrial undertaking under any law for the time being in force which authorizes any such Government or local authority so to do. Briefly stated, the Central Act declares that it is expedient in the public interest to take under its control the scheduled industries; its provisions are designed to provide for the development and regulation of the said industries; it enables the Central Government, for the purpose of promoting and rcgulatini2' the said industries, to investigate into the affairs of an undertaking, to regulate its production, supply and distribution, and, if necessi>. utilised by the State Government for purposes of production of gas and supply thereof to public institutions mentioned therein and for other purposes. Sections 8 l}nd 9 provide for payment of compensation for taking over the said management. It would be seen that the impugned Act intends to serve the same purpose as the Central Act, though its operation is. confined to the Oriental Gas Company. Both tho Acts are conceived to increase tho production, quality and supply pertaining to an industry, and for that purpose to enable the appropriate Government, if necessary, to take over the management for regulating tho industry concerned to achieve the said purposes. .The impugned Act occupies a part of the field already covered by the Central Act. The question is whether the State Legislature has constitutional competency to encroach upon the said field. At this stage it would be convenient to read the relevant Articles of the Constitution. Aricle 246. · (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3) Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List"). (3) Subject to clauses (I) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the mattem enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "State List"). List I-Union List ·Entry 7. Industries declared by Parliament by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. ,. • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 13 · Entry 52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. List I I -&ate List Entry 24. Industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I. Enti·y 25. Gas and gas-works. Entry 26. Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions. of entry 33 of List III. Entry 27. Production, supply and distribution of goods subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III. Before construing the sa.id entries it would be useful to notice some of the well settled rules of interpretation laid down by the Federal Court and this Court in the matter of construing the entrie~. The power to legislate is given to the appropriate Legislatures by Att. 246 of the Constitution. The entries in the three' Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation : 'they demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures can· operate. It is also well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries. But some of the entries in the different List or· in the same List may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the dnty of this Court to reconcile the entries and bring about harmony between them. When the question arose about reconciling entry 45 of List I, duties of excise, and entry 18 of List II, taxes on the sale of gonds, of Government of India Act, 1935, Gwyer, C. J., in ln re The Central Provinces and Berar Act No. X fV of 1938 (1), observed; ' "A grant of the power in general terms, standing by itself, would no doubt be construed in the wider· sense; bnt it may be qualified (!) (!939) F. C.R. IB, 42, 44. 1962 The Calcutla Gas Oompan) (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal Subba Rao J. 1962 T ht C:oir11fl.1 GaJ (,'nn,pany (P1ot,1ino•;) l.:d 1 v. ·r1,, ._<..'taze of JYcir B~Tl'.fcJ.l Si.bba Uao J. 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. by other express pro,·isions in the same enactment, by the implication of the context, and even by considerations arising out of what appears to be the general scheme of the. Act.,. The learned Chief J usticc procr eded to state : " ......... an endra n>ur must be made to sohc it, as the ,Judicial Committee have said by having recourse to the context and scheme of the Act, and a rceonciliation attempted betwmm two apparently conflicting jurisdictions hy reading the two entries together and hy interpreting, and, whrre ncne~sary, mod(fying the language of the un" by that of the oth<>r. If indeed i;ueh a rc'bonciliation should prov" impossible, then, and only then. will the nm1·obstantc clau~e operate and the federal power prevail." The Federal Court in that ease held th:it the entry '"taxes on the Hale of good"" was not covered by the entry "duties of cxcisi" :rn so 9onstn~ecl as to make a nullit,Y of a particular - , • 1 3 s.c.R.' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 15 power !Jonferred by the same Act and operating in the same field, when by reading the former in a more restricted sense effect can be given to the latter in its ordinary and natural meaning." The rule of constru.ction adopted by that decision for the purpose of harmonizing the two apparently conflicting entries in the two Lists would equally apply to an apparent conflict between two entries in the same List. Patanjali Sastri, J., as he then was, held in·State of Bombay v.Narothamdas J ethabai(') that the words "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts'' in item one of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, must be understood in a restricted sense excluding from their scope "jurisdiction and powers of courts" specifically dealt with in item 2 of List II. In the words of the learned Judge, if such a construction was not given "the wider construction of entry I would deprive entry · 2 of ail its content and reduce it to useless lumber." This rule of construction has not been dissented · from in any of th0 subsequent decisions of this CDlirt. It may, therefore, be taken as a well settled rule of construction tJiat every attempt should be made to harmonize the apparently conflicting entries not only of different Lists but also of the same List and to reject that construction which will rob onu of the imtries of its entire content and make it nugatory. With this background let us construe the aforesaid entries. There are three possible constri:ctions, namely, (1) entry 24 of List II, which pJ,"ovidcs for industries generally, covers the indqstrial aspect of gas and gas works leaving entry 25 to p:·ovide for other aspects of gas and gas-works; (2) «ntiy 24 provides generally for industries, and «ntry 25 carves out of it the specific industry (!) [1951] S. C.R. ,,1, 1982 The r:alcutta Gas Comp'.my (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State "of West Bengal Sttbha Rao J. The Caltutta Gas Com>any ( /l, oprUtat_)) I.Id. v. The Stak of II est IJ,nga/ Sul)ba Rao J. 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. of gns and gas-work•, with the result that the industry of gas and gas-works is excluded from entry 24 ; and(::!) the industry of gas and gas-works falls umfor both the entries, that is, there is a real overlapin!! of the said entries. Having regard to the aforesaid principle, while giving tho widest scope to both the entries, we shall adopt tho interpretation which reconciles and harmonizes them. The first question that oecurs to one's mind is, what is the meaning of tho cxprt>ssion "industry" in entry 24 0f List JI ? IR it 1lifferent from tho meaning of that ilXpresRion in entry 52 of List I ? Whatnver may be its eonnotation, it must, hear t.hn ~amo meaning in both the entries for thr two entries are so interconnected that conflicting or different meanings given to them would snap the connection. Entry !?4 is subject t.o the proviRions of entrv 7 and entrv 52 of .List I. Entry 7 of List I provides for indu~tries declared by Parliament by law to be nr1•cssary for thr purpose of defence or for the prosrcution of war; and entry .~2 for industries t hP control of which by the Union is declared bv Parliam11nt by law to be expedient in tho pn hlfr intcrPst. Therefore ordinarilv indn•tr:v is in the field of State legis. lation ; but, if Parliament by law makes a reluvant declaration or declarations, "the industrv or industries so declared would bo tR ken off "its field and passed on to Parliament. Tn the premises. the cxpres~ion "industry" in all the ent.ries must bP. given tho same mea.ninp-. Now, "hat is tho mean· ing of word "induRtrv"? In Ch. Tika Ramji v. State nf ntm· Pradesh (1), the •·xprcssion "industries" . is defined to mean the pn,cess of manufacture or production and P. alternative contention enables entries 24 a.nd 25 to operato fully in their rc8pectivc fields : while entry 24 covers a ve'rv wide field, that iR, the field of the entire industry ·in the State, entry 2ii. dealing with gas and gas-works, ca.n be confined to a Hpccifi" industry, that is, the gas industry. There may be many good reasons for the authors of the Constitution giving separate treatment to gas and gas-works. If one can surmis(., it may be that, as the industry of gas and gas· works was confined to one or two States and was not of all-India importance, it was carved out of entry 24 and given a separate entry, as otherwise if a declaration by law was made by Parliament. within tho mrn~ning of ;•ntry 7 or entry ii2 of List I, it would be taken out of the legi~lativo power of States. Be it as it may, the express intention of the Constitution is to treat it, in nUJmal times, as a state subject and it is not in the province of this Court to ascertain and scrutinize the reasuns for doing so. It is suggested that this interpreta· tion would prevent Parliament to make law in respect of gas and gas-works during war or other national emergency. Apart from the relevancy of such a consideration, the apprehension has no justification, for under Art. 249 Parliament is enabled to take up for legislation any matter which is specifically enumrrated in List II whenever the Council of States resolves by two.thirds majority that such a legislation is necessary or expedient in the national interest. So too, under Art. ~50 Parliament can make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List, if a. Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. Article 2ii2 authorizes the Parliament to legislate for two or more States, if tho House8 of the Legislatures of those ::itatcs give their eonRcnt to the said course. Subject to s~ich Pmcrgency or extra-ordinary powers, the entire industry of gas and gas-works is within exclusive legislative competence of a State. It iH, therefore, dear that the scheme of harmoniou" con· struction suggested on behalf of the State gives full ... • • \~ 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 19 and effective scope of operation for both the entries in their respective fields, while that suggested by learned counsel for the appellant deprives entry 25 of a 11 its content and even . makes it redundant. The former interpretation must, therefore, be accepted in preference to· the latter. In this view, gas and-gas works are within the exclusive field allotted to the States, On this interpretation the argument of the learned Attorney-Genera]. that, under Art. 24.6 of the Constitution, the legislative power of State is subject to that of Parliament ceases to have a,ny force, for the gas industry is outside the legislative field of Parliament and is within the exclusive field of the Legislature of the State. We, therefore, hold that the impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the West Bengal Legislature and was, therefore, validly made. In this view the alternative argument advanced on beh. same meaning as that iu entry 24 of List II, with the result that the said expression in entry 5 .'. of List I also does not take in a gas industry. If so, it follows that the Central Ad, in so f.ir as it purported to deal "ith the gas industry, is beyond the legislative competeneo of Parliament.. Section 20 is an integral part of the Central Act, and if it is taken out of the Act, it can only operaw in v:.cuum. The said section was introduced for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Central .<\ct. It was also enacted by virtue of entry i'::! of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If the Act was constitutionally void in so far as it purported to offect the gas industry, for the aforesaid reasons, s. 20 would equally be void to tho same extent for the same reasons. Jn this context two decisions of this Court, namely, Raylrnbir Singh v. Slaw of Ajmtr( 1), and State of Bihar v.