Judgment :- 1. This is an application for issue of an appropriate writ or order for quashing Ex. P1 notice dated 2112 1966 issued by the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, at the instance of the 4th respondent, demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 47,000/- odd by way of arrears of electricity duty due from the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta. 2. A licence for distribution of electrical energy in Shenkotta and Punalur except in the area where the Punalur Paper Mill is situate, was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1114 M.E. The petitioner has been distributing electrical energy under the name and style of Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta. He surrendered the licence to distribute electricity in Punalur area to the government in 1951. The original agreement was that government would supply electrical energy to the petitioner in Punalur area. That was changed in August 1953 and the government thereafter supplied electrical energy to the petitioner in Shenkotta. 3. Under S.3(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act of 1950, a duty was payable by a licensee on the sale of electrical energy. S.3 (1) of the Act ran as follows: "(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) every licensee in the State of Travancore-Cochin shall pay every month to the government in the prescribed manner, a duty calculated at the prescribed rate on and in respect of all sales of energy effected by the licensee during the previous month, at a price of more than two annas per unit." The Travancore-Cochin government levied electricity duty upon the petitioner for the period from June 1952 to August 1953. The petitioner filed O. S.104 of 1955 in the Trivandrum District Court for declaration that the levy was bad. The court by its judgment dated 9-9-1963 held that there was no provision in the Act fixing the rate of the duty, that the rule made by government fixing the rate in the exercise of its rule-making power, was bad as that was excessive delegation of legislative power, and therefore, the levy was ultra vires. The Kerala State Electricity Duty Act 1963, Act 23 of 1963, which came into force on 10th April 1963, repealed the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act of 1950. The Kerala State Electricity Duty Act 1963, Act 23 of 1963, which came into force on 10th April 1963, repealed the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act of 1950. The Kerala Electricity Duty (Validation) Act, Act 3 of 1965, was passed to validate the levy or collection of electricity duty under the T.C. Electricity Duty Act 1950. Ex. P1 demand is for the electricity duty levied by the T. C. government from June 1952 to August 1953. 4. It was contended for the petitioner that under S.78 of the States Re-orgainsation Act the right to recover the arrears of electricity duty devolved on the Madras State, and therefore the State of Kerala cannot by a legislative enactment enforce the liability for the arrears; and that since the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act of 1950 was repealed, there was no liability which could be validated by Act 3 of 1965, and therefore, the validation of the levy is of no avail. The petitioner further submitted that the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta, is a firm situate in Shenkotta, and so, the Kerala Legislature could not have passed Act 3 of 1965 validating the levy, as at the time of the passing of that Act the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency was situated outside the State of Kerala. It was argued that the jurisdiction of the Kerala Legislature extended only upto the boundaries of the State, and cannot reach an entity or a firm functioning outside it; and as the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta, was functioning in Madras State, Act 3 of 1965 could not have imposed a liability upon the Agency. 5. I do not think that anything turns on the question whether the government supplied electrical energy to the petitioner in Punalur or Shenkotta. Whether the supply was in Punalur or Shenkotta, I think, the electricity duty levied by government was duty upon the licensee in respect of the sale of electricity by him. S.78 of the States Reorganisation Act has no application here, as that section is concerned with arrears of tax or duty on property including land revenue. Whether the supply was in Punalur or Shenkotta, I think, the electricity duty levied by government was duty upon the licensee in respect of the sale of electricity by him. S.78 of the States Reorganisation Act has no application here, as that section is concerned with arrears of tax or duty on property including land revenue. S.78 reads: "The right to recover arrears of any tax or duty on property, including arrears of land revenue, shall belong to the successor State in which the property is situated, and the right to recover arrears of any other tax or duty shall belong to the successor State in whose territories the place of assessment of that tax or duty is included". 6. The contention of the petitioner that as the levy made by government was declared void by the judgment in O.S. 104/55 and that since the T. C. Electricity Duty Act of 1950 was repealed by the Kerala Electricity Duty Act 1963, there was no longer any liability on the petitioner at the time when Act 3 of 1965 was passed, and therefore, the validation of the levy, which was nonexistent in the eye of the law by Act 3 of 1965, can be of no avail, has no substance. S.3 of Act 3 of 1965 is as follows: "(1) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, all duties levied or collected or purporting to have been levied or collected under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder before the 15th day of April, 1963, shall be deemed to have been validly levied or collected in accordance with law as if the provisions of the repealed Act & of the rules made thereunder, in so far as such provisions relate to the levy and collection of such duty had been included in, and formed part of this section and this section had been in force at all material times when such duty was levied or collected; and accordingly, (a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of any duty paid under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder; (b) no court shall enforce a decree or order directing the refund of any duty paid under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder (c) any duty levied under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder before the 15ih day of April, 1963, but not collected, may be recovered in the manner provided under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder, (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing any person from claiming refund of any duty paid by him in excess of the amount due from him under the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder". It is clear from the section that ad duties levied or purported to be levied under the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act 1950, are deemed to be levied under Act 3 of 1965. The relevant provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act 1950 and the Rules made thereunder are incorporated in Act 3 of 1965, and they are deemed to have be en in force on the date when the duties were levied. It is too late in the day to contend that the legislature of a State which has plenary powers to legislate upon a topic has no power to legislate with retrospective effect. Entry 53 in List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution is as follows: "Taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity". It is too late in the day to contend that the legislature of a State which has plenary powers to legislate upon a topic has no power to legislate with retrospective effect. Entry 53 in List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution is as follows: "Taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity". The duty, here, is on the sale of electricity by the licensee. The court in its judgment in O. S.104 of 1955 held that the imposition of the duty under the provisions of the T. C. Electricity Duty Act 1950, was illegal as the rule fixing the rate of the duty was bad for excessive delegation of legislative power. Even so it was open to the legislature to incorporate the provisions of that Act and the rules made thereunder in Act 3 of 1965, and give the Act retrospective operation. Even assuming that no liability for duty accrued on account of the levy by the government under the T. C. Electricity Duty Act 1950. it was still open to the legislature to pass Act 3 of 1965 with retrospective operation. 7. The next contention of the petitioner is that the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta, is a firm; and the firm has its sites in Shenkotta, outside the Kerala State, and therefore, the Kerala State when it passed Act 3 of 1965, had no legislative jurisdiction over the firm. Petitioner's counsel said that the power of the Kerala legislature cannot extend beyond its territory and that when it passed Act 3 of 1965 with retrospective operation, it had no legislative jurisdiction over the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta. In other words, it was submitted that even though Shenkotta was within the Travancore territory when the licence was granted and the liability for the duty accrued, when Shenkotta became part of the Madras territory by the States Reorganisation Act, the Kerala legislature lost its legislative jurisdiction over Shenkotta, and therefore, could not have passed Act 3 of 1965 imposing liability upon a firm resident in Shenkotta I do not think, there is any substance in this contention. As I have already said, the licencee was the petitioner, and not the firm. As I have already said, the licencee was the petitioner, and not the firm. The fact that the petitioner entered into a partnership in 1956 with two other individuals, and converted the Shenkotta Electric Supply Agency, Shenkotta, into a firm would not in any way affect the liability of the petitioner, in his capacity as licensee. The Government could look only to the licensee for realisation of the electricity duty which accrued due in 1952 -53. The fact that in 1956 the licensee entered into a partnership with two other persons would not affect the liability of the licensee or make the liability a liability of the partnership. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was residing in Trivandrum from 1952 onwards. Therefore, the Kerala State had ample jurisdiction to pass a legislation imposing liability upon the petitioner a licensee for the duty payable by him as licensee for sale of electrical energy. The liability imposed is a liability upon licensees for sale of electrical energy. Being a resident within the jurisdiction of the Kerala State, the Kerala State had jurisdiction to pass Act 3 of 1965 imposing liability upon the petitioner also. In this view, it is quite unnecessary to deal with the contention of the learned Advocate General that even if the Shenkotta Electric . Supply Agency, Shenkotta, is a firm resident in Shenkotta, there was sufficient territorial nexus between the firm, and the Kerala State, to give jurisdiction to the latter to pass the legislation in question. Although several cases have been cited to show that a legislature can legislate in respect of persons or property out. side its territory if some fact, circumstance, or event takes place or occurs within the territory of the State passing the legislation, as I have already said, it is not necessary for me to consider this aspect of the question in view of my finding that the petitioner was a resident of Trivandrum at all relevant times, and therefore, the Kerala legislature had jurisdiction to pass the legislation imposing the liability upon him as licensee for the sale of electrical energy. 8. 8. It was contended for the petitioner that Act 3 of 1965 was passed for imposing electricity duty upon a single individual, namely, the petitioner; and that it was to avoid the effect of the decision in O.S. 104/1955 that it was passed, and that it is not within the province of a legislature to pass a legislation to cover the case of a single individual or to set at naught the effect of a judicial decision. There is no substance in the contention that the legislation is intended to cover the case of the petitioner only. The legislation is a legislation imposing a duty upon all licensees for sale or consumption of electrical energy, and validating all the levies and collections. Even assuming that it is a legislation to cover the case of the petitioner only, I do not think that the legislation would be bad for that reason. And as regards the contention that it is not open to the legislature to pass a legislation imposing liability for electricity duty, when the original levy was nullified by a judicial decision, it is enough for me to refer to the decisions in Udai Ram v. Union of India AIR, 1968 SC. 1138 and Amritsar Municipality v. State of Punjab AIR. 1969 Sc. 1100. 9. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that Ex. P1 evidences a quasi-judicial decision and that the reasons for the decision should have been stated in Ex. P1. Ex. P1 is only a demand. I dismiss the writ petition with costs.