Legislative competence over gas and gas-works upheld after harmonising overlapping constitutional entries and rejecting central displacement

Article 226 standing requires an enforceable legal right, and a contractual right directly curtailed by state action was sufficient to confer locus standi. Legislative competence over gas and gas-works was upheld by harmonising the Seventh Schedule entries so that the specific State entry retained effect and was not absorbed by the broader industry entry. Repugnancy was rejected because the central legislation could not validly extend to that field, and the ancillary restriction in Section 20 could not operate independently beyond Parliament's competence. The State law was therefore treated as a valid exercise of legislative power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the West Bengal Legislature had legislative competence to enact the impugned law governing gas and gas-works, having regard to the entries in the Seventh Schedule and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; (iii) whether the Central Act excluded or displaced the State law by reason of repugnancy or by operation of the restriction contained in Section 20 of the Central Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The right enforceable under Article 226 must ordinarily be a legal right of the petitioner. The appellant's contractual entitlement to manage the undertaking for 20 years and to receive remuneration was directly affected by the impugned Act, which transferred management to the State for a period of five years and thereby curtailed those contractual rights.

Conclusion: The appellant had locus standi to maintain the petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the West Bengal Legislature had legislative competence to enact the impugned law governing gas and gas-works, having regard to the entries in the Seventh Schedule and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

Analysis: The competing entries in List II were construed harmoniously. The expression "industry" in Entry 24 of List II was read as not embracing gas and gas-works, so that Entry 25 retained full content as a distinct State subject. The Court held that this interpretation gave effect to both entries without rendering either redundant. On that basis, gas and gas-works fell within the exclusive legislative field of the State.

Conclusion: The impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the West Bengal Legislature.

Issue (iii): Whether the Central Act excluded or displaced the State law by reason of repugnancy or by operation of the restriction contained in Section 20 of the Central Act.

Analysis: Since gas industry was held to lie outside the scope of Entry 52 of List I, the Central Act could not validly cover that field so as to displace State legislation. Section 20, being an ancillary provision enacted to support the main Central Act, could not survive independently in relation to a subject beyond Parliament's competence.

Conclusion: The Central Act did not invalidate the impugned State law, and Section 20 did not avail the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The State law was upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power, and the appellant failed on all substantive grounds considered by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two legislative entries overlap, they must be harmonised so that each has effective content; a specific State entry may exclude a broader general entry, and an ancillary provision of a central enactment falls if the central statute cannot validly extend to that subject.

---