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

The Rajasthan High Court held that it is unlawful to withhold an employee’s pension or gratuity, especially if they are already enrolled in an outdated pension plan

Title: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Decided on: 19 October, 2023

+ Civil Writ Petition No. 20043/2017

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Introduction

A Municipal Corporation was recently ordered by the Rajasthan High Court to release an employee’s pension and gratuity payments, ruling that it was unlawful, unfair, and capricious to withhold such benefits. Given that the petitioner had previously been enrolled in the Old Pension Scheme, the court further stated that the Corporation’s request for him to select between the New Pension Scheme and the Old Pension Scheme was unlawful.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s employment as a driver was terminated in 1985 after it was first hired on November 14, 1982. He then filed an industrial dispute, which resulted in an award that reversed his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full-service continuity. The Corporation appealed the decision, but it was turned down. The Corporation then filed an appeal, which was only partially granted and restricted the amount of back pay to the petitioner’s appointment date. The petitioner received a regular pay scale on January 19, 2006, and was restored on February 8, 2001, with effect from April 13, 1994. Regretfully, on July 5, 2006, this decision was withdrawn, which led the petitioner to pursue a civil petition in 2006. On December 16, 2008, the court granted this petition. The Corporation then went ahead and reinstated the order from January 19, 2006, which indicated that the petitioner was now a regular employee. The petitioner reached superannuation age on December 31, 2016, and retired after serving the required number of years. But even after a significant length of time had passed, the Corporation still neglected to pay the petitioner’s retirement benefits, such as his pension and gratuity. The petitioner filed a court case under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Courts analysis and decision

The Corporation’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s pension and gratuity was deemed unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable by the court. Accordingly, it was decided that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent annually under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, as well as gratuity and pension in compliance with the terms of the Old Pension Scheme. As a result, the court granted the writ petition and directed the Corporation to release the petitioner’s pension and gratuity as soon as possible, together with interest accruing at the rate of 9% annually from the date of due until the payment is actually made, which should happen within three months.

“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.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

Rajasthan High Court rules ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ as ‘namkeen,’ not ‘snacks’ under VAT Act.

Case Title: Ms Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner

Decided on: 06 October, 2023

Writ no. S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 119/2020
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns a dispute over the classification of ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos,’ snack products manufactured by PepsiCo India Holdings, for tax purposes under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (RVAT Act). The main issue is whether these snacks should be categorized as ‘namkeen’ (subject to a lower tax rate) or ‘snacks’ (subject to a higher tax rate) under the RVAT Act.

 PepsiCo argued for ‘namkeen’ classification, while the Revenue authority classified them as ‘snacks.’ The case hinges on statutory interpretation, and the outcome has significant tax implications for these products.

Facts of the case

The case involved various Sales Tax Revision/Reference applications (STRs) and revolved around the interpretation of whether ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ should be classified as ‘namkeen’ or ‘snacks’ under the RVAT Act. Pepsico presented their case based on packaging labels, ingredients, FSSAI licenses, and legal judgments to support their classification as ‘namkeen.’ They argued that specific entries should take precedence over general entries in the tax schedule and that the Revenue authority had not provided sufficient evidence for their classification.

The Respondent’s argument rested on classifying these products as snacks and placing them under the residual entry, citing basic internet searches and ingredient lists.

Courts Analysis and Decision

After a comprehensive examination of the arguments and evidence presented, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner, PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The court classified ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ as ‘namkeen’ under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This decision resulted in a lower tax rate for these products and effectively quashed the Tax Board’s orders that had classified them as snacks.

The court’s decision was based on the interpretation of a previous judgment by the Tax Board and the insufficient evidence presented by the respondent to support their classification of the products as snacks. As a result, PepsiCo’s products were classified as ‘namkeen,’ leading to a lower tax liability for the company.

“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. “

Written by- Kusuma R

Click to view judgement

0

Maheshwari Public School has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

Case Title: MAHESHWARI PUBLICE SCHOOL VS RAN NON GOV EDUCATION TRI ORS

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18478/2011

Decided on: 03/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

Present petition arises out of the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 01/2005, by which the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) has been allowed and her termination order dated 27.9.2004 has been quashed and the petitioner Institution has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits.

That respondent no.2 was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher in Maths on 4.4.1996 w.e.f. 2.4.1996 by the petitioner Institution and she was removed from service vide order dated 27.9.2004 and six months salary of Rs. 62,394/- was paid to her in lieu of six months notice. (3) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order.

The respondent was in the habit of beating students and she was warned on number of occasions, but her behaviour did not change and her such act affected the reputation of the school, hence the school management took the decision to remove her from service after making payment of six months salary in lieu of the notice.

The respondent submitted an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that she was removed from service in violation of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short “Rules of 1993”). It was pleaded before the Tribunal that without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, she was removed from service with various allegations of beating students of her class. It was pleaded that her removal order was stigmatic and without seeking consent or approval of the Director of Education the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 was passed. It was also pleaded that full salary of six months was not paid to her and the impugned order was passed against the mandatory provisions of law.

 

Judgement:

Mere sending of intimation/information is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of the above provisions. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order dated 27.9.2004.

Since this court is of the view that the termination order of the respondent is not passed as per the mandate of above provisions, the court is not deciding the other objections and issues raised by either of the parties.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

“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.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

0

The partition of the property in-dispute took place much earlier to writing down of the details of the property in the Bahi: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

Case Title: Leela Devi & Ors. versus  Amar Chand & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6969/2006

Decided on: 02/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Facts of the case:

This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned trial court whereby the documents submitted by the respondent no.1 have been permitted to be taken on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction on 19.10.2005 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was subsequently transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara.

The defendant respondent no.1 filed a written statement to the suit, wherein it was submitted that on account of a family settlement arrived between the family members, the property in- dispute came into ownership and possession of the answering defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit on 26.07.2006. The cross-examination on affidavit was started and during the same, the respondent no.1 defendant submitted a family settlement dated 06.09.1977. The petitioner-plaintiff took an objection upon the filing of the family settlement alleging that the same was not a family settlement but a partition-deed.

It was further contended that since the document in-question being a partition-deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, cannot be on record to be adduced as evidence. It was further contended that the document in-question was not a family settlement but a partition-deed because the contents of it clearly shows the transfer of land from one person to the other and the other person getting right, title and interest in such property and, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a family settlement but a sale-deed. It has also been contended that the property in-dispute is a self-acquired property and not a joint family property and, thus, in such circumstances the property in-dispute could be transferred only by way of a partition-deed and not by any other mode.

The document in-question being a family settlement does not require registration and, thus, can be taken into evidence. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 preferred present writ petition.

 

 

Judgement:

It is an admitted position that an oral arrangement between the family members was entered into a Bahi with the title “Dastavej Baabat Pariwarik Samjhota”. The parties have antecedent title/claim & interest in the property, which is acknowledged in this settlement.

The family arrangement is voluntary. The arrangement has apparently been arrived at between the members of a family descending from a common ancestor and are near relatives who were looking forward to sink their differences, settle and resolve their disputes to enjoy complete harmony and goodwill in the family.

The Bahi entry was to protect the family unity and solidarity while equitably dividing the family property. This Court finds that the equitable principles like family settlement ought to be relied upon in resolving such disputes and cannot be subjected to rigors of technicalities in law.

The view taken by the learned trial court as the learned trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the document in dispute dated 06.09.1977 was admissible in evidence. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

“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.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

1 2 3