The issue of harmonious construction revolved much around in case of conflict between a general provision and a specific provision. Two sub clauses of the same provision had conflicting views wherein the court used the doctrine of harmonious construction to resolve the issue.
Case in brief.
Renusagar was a 100% subsidiary company of Hindalco which was mainly incorporated for the supply of electricity to the holding company which was a aluminium manufacturing company. Numerous amendments and notifications were passed from 1950’s which changed the stance on the electricity duty on the self generated electricity. From 1952 to 1970 no duty was payable if electricity was produced by own source. From 1970 to 1973 duty of one paisa after 1973 no duty was payable. Sanction from government was obtained by Renusagar specifically for the supply of electricity to Hindalco company. Wherein, it shall supply electricity only to Hindalco and Renusagar was to be treated as captive plant (own source of generation) by government. The crux of the matter is whether production of electricity by Renusagar solely to Hindalco would constitute a sale between the two companies or would amount to own source of generation.
The conflicting provisions involved in this case was
Section 3 Levy of electricity duty.-(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, there shall be levied for and paid to the State Government on the energy:
(a) sold to a consumer by a licensee, the Board, the State Government or the Central Government; or
(c) consumed by any other person from his own source of generation; a duty (hereinafter referred to as ‘electricity duty’) determined at such rate or rates as may from time to time be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Gazette, and such rate may be fixed either as a specified percentage of the rate charged or as a specified sum per unit.
Of the UP electricity duty Act 1952
Section 3(1)(c) gives government the discretion to set the electricity duty on “own source of generation” accordingly, Renusgar will be exempted owing to all the government notifications. Reading it in the context of 3(1)(a) it can be seen the Renusagar acts as a licensee and Hindalco would behave as a consumr. Thereby, a duty can be levied on Hindalco. Hence the two provision is in direct conflict with each other on the pretext of duty being levied.
By the application of doctrine of harmonious construction , it was found that the sub clauses of section 3 (1) should be read harmoniously and not lierally. Provisions should be construed in a way that they don’t defeat the other provisions. It was also opined that in cases of general and specific probvision, specific provisions should be applied in light of harmonious construction of the provisions. Hence was held that section 3(1)(c) is a special provision where it does not deal with normal circumstances of sale but with few exceptional circumstances as “own source” . it was also said that such harmonious construction between the general and special provisions would be in consonance with the object and purpose of the Act. benefits is to be availed to such self generation companies in the purview of public interest.
Remarks – this case is a classic precedence. over the much debated topic in the legal field, i.e., conflict of special and general law, harmonious construction of the acts a guiding light. One of the striking interpretation in this case is that conflicting clauses appear in the same section and is resolved harmoniously by upholding the object and purpose of the Act (UP electricity duty Act 1952) Though this case deals only with the harmonious construction of conflicting provisions between a general and specific provisions it makes way to resolve bigger conflicts. For example, in cases of conflicting legislations like Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003(COTPA) and Tobacco Board Act.1975. Where the former is to regulate the use of tobacco and the latter is to encourage tobacco industry.
Thereby resolving issues dealing with conflicting provisions one being general and the other being specific is effortless by this judgment.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS