0

Rajasthan High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus as it failed to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests: Supreme court

Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs MB power (Madhya Pradesh)             Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6503 OF 2022

Decided on: 08.01.2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai

Facts of the Case

The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 20th September 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The High Court held that the respondent no. 1 to 5 are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW of electricity from the successful bidders. It, therefore, directed the writ petitioner- MB Power to supply 200 MW electricity to the respondents within the limit of 906 MW. Furthermore, it ordered respondent 1 to 5 to issue Letter of Intent to PTC within 2 weeks of receiving compliant application. Court had specifically directed the State Commission to decide the tariff under Section 63 of the Electricity Act having regard to the law laid down both statutorily and by this Court.

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission sought to procure 1000 MW of power via competitive bidding in 2009. Bids were received, 7 bidders qualified, but MB Power wasn’t among them. PTC India, a power-trading company, submitted a bid for 1041 MW sourced from five generators. BEC gave its opinion that since the rates quoted vary considerably, negotiations could be held with the bidders. the L-4 and L-5 bidders filed Writ Petitions before the High Court, seeking to strike down the negotiations process. The court directed the State Commission to go into the issue of approval for the adoption of tariffs concerning L-4 and L-5 bidders. Subsequent to the judgment, the BEC came to a finding that the tariffs quoted by the L-4 and L-5 bidders were not aligned to the prevailing market prices, and the state government held the same. The writ petition filed by MB Power has been allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the present appellants filed this civil appeal.

Issue

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing mandamus in the nature it issued?

Legal provision

Article 226 of Indian Constitution gives High Courts the power to issue writs to carry out the implementation of Fundamental Rights.

Section 63 of the Electricity Act –

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 62, the Appropriate Commission shall adopt the tariff if such tariff has been determined through transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government.

Court Analysis and Decision

 The Apex court found that the High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus in the nature it issued for which it took reference to the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 617]. The court deemed the issued mandamus flawed, since is failed  to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests

The court held that Contract awards, public or private, are primarily commerce-driven. While the State has flexibility in selecting its decision-making method and even negotiating offers, it must follow its own established procedures and avoid arbitrariness. While courts generally don’t scrutinize award decisions, they can review the process for bias, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. Even then, judicial intervention happens only under exceptional circumstances, prioritizing public interest and avoiding merely technical irregularities. Furthermore, the decision-making process, as adopted by the BEC was totally in conformity with the principles laid down by the Court from time to time.  The conclusion by BEC that the rates quoted by SKS Power (L-5 bidder) were not market aligned, was approved by the state commission.

The appeals were therefore allowed and the judgment and order of the learned APTEL dated 1st June 2023 is quashed and set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

0

Madras High Court says Mutawalli should be nominated by Jammat.

Case Title:  

C.Amjad Ahmed   …Petitioner .

      Vs.

The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Ors.   …Respondent.

Date of Decision:

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 13.06.2023

ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 16.06.2023

Coram: 

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE  MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH

Citation:

W.P.Nos.25077 of 2015 and 23671 of 2018 and  WMP Nos.27617 of 2018 and 569 of 2019 W.P.No.25077 of 2015.

 Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka. No.4367/11/ A7/VE, dated 17.07.2018 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant approval to the Resolution dated 25.06.2018 for the election of the Muthavalli of the petitioner mosques and madarsa for the period between 18.07.2018 and 17.07.2021 by considering the representation dated 30.07.2018

 Facts: 

The petitioner, C.Amjad Ahmed, was a member of the Managing Committee of five mosques in Vellore district. The tenure of the Managing Committee had expired in 2014, but the Wakf Board had not yet conducted elections to a new committee. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Wakf Board to conduct elections by secret ballot.

Issues: 

  • Whether the Wakf Board was required to conduct elections to the managing committees of waqfs on a regular basis.
  • Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition.

Judgment:

The High Court held that the Wakf Board was required to conduct elections to the managing committees of waqfs on a regular basis. The Court also held that the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition, as he was a member of the Managing Committee. The High Court directed the Wakf Board to conduct elections by secret ballot to the five mosques within two weeks of the date of the order. The Court also directed the Wakf Board to take appropriate action on the results of the elections.

Legal Analysis:

The Wakf Board is required to conduct elections to the managing committees of waqfs on a regular basis. The managing committees of waqfs must be democratically elected. The waqfs must be managed in a transparent and accountable manner. The case of C.Amjad Ahmed v The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board is a landmark decision that has helped to ensure that waqfs in India are managed in a fair and transparent manner.

Conclusion:

The case of C.Amjad Ahmed v The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board is an important case for the management of waqfs in India. The Court’s decision in this case establishes that the Wakf Board is required to conduct elections to the managing committees of waqfs on a regular basis. This ensures that the managing committees are democratically elected and that the waqfs are managed in a transparent and accountable manner.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Land Reservation for Public Parking Lapsed Due to the Authorities’ failure to take necessary steps for acquisition: Bombay High Court

INTRODUCTION:

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 04 May 2023 stating that that a land reservation for public parking, which had been in place for years, has lapsed due to the authorities’ failure to take necessary steps for acquisition. The case of SADASHIV TRYAMBAK RAJEBAHADUR & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2017 which was passed by the single bench comprising of HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, KAMAL KHATA. The case sheds light on the importance of timely action by government bodies and the rights of landowners.

FACTS:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare Reservation No. 485 on Final Plot No. 131/1 and 131/2 in City Survey No. 352 & 352A as lapsed. The petitioner contends that the concerned authorities have neglected to take any steps for over two decades, either for purchasing or acquiring the land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the MRTP Act”). Additionally, the petitioner highlights that the land should have been released from the reservation within a specific period of 12 months from the date of the Purchase notice issued on 8th July 2015, as stipulated by the Act. Considering these circumstances, the petitioner seeks the court’s declaration that the reservation has lapsed, effectively freeing the land from its reserved status.

In response to the purchase notice, the municipal corporation stated that the notice period would only commence upon submission of the petitioners’ documents. The parties engaged in correspondence regarding the production of title documents, while the petitioners argued that the reservation had lapsed due to the authorities’ failure to take necessary steps within the prescribed time frame. It was revealed through an application under the Right to Information Act that a land acquisition proposal for the plot had been pending before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition).

THE HIGH COURT’S JUDGMENT:

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Bombay High Court rendered a crucial judgment. The court held that the respondents’ contentions, which sought to continue the reservation on the petitioners’ plot, were contrary to established legal principles. Referring to previous rulings, the court emphasized that a draft development plan or revised development plan does not attain legal sanctity until it is sanctioned in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the MRTP Act.

The court further highlighted that the purchase notice issued by the petitioners was valid since it was served before the notification implementing the draft revised development plan. It rejected the contention that an amendment to the MRTP Act, extending the notice period to 24 months, should apply retrospectively. The court emphasized that the amendment did not have retrospective effect and, therefore, the lapse of the reservation occurred after twelve months from the date of the purchase notice.

Considering the above, the court allowed the writ petition, declared the reservation as lapsed, and directed the state government to notify the lapsing of the reservation in the Official Gazette. Additionally, the court instructed the authorities to consider any fresh plans for building permission submitted by the petitioners in an expedited manner.

IMPLICATIONS:

The Bombay High Court’s judgment has significant implications for landowners and highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and timelines in land acquisition and development plans. The ruling reinforces the principle that a draft development plan or revised development plan cannot be considered final until it is sanctioned according to the prescribed process.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes that the officers of the planning authority are not authorized to investigate land titles and that the running of time for land acquisition is not contingent upon submission of title documents along with the purchase notice. These clarifications provide valuable guidance for future cases involving land acquisition and reservation issues.

CONCLUSION:

The Bombay High Court’s judgment brings clarity to the lapse of land reservations due to inaction by authorities and the significance of adherence to legal procedures. The ruling ensures that landowners’ rights are protected and underscores the importance of timely and transparent decision-making by government bodies. This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases and reinforces the principles of fairness and justice in land acquisition and development processes.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement