1. Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 61 - Tariff Regulations - Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) - National Tariff Policy 2006 - MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2005 - MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 - Validity of a tariff regulation framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC).
Power to frame regulations is of a legislative nature.
A body which is entrusted with the task of framing subordinate legislation has a range of options including policy options. If on an appraisal of all the guiding principles, it has chosen a particular line of logic or rationale, this Court ought not to interfere.
MERC is an expert body which is entrusted with the duty and function to frame regulations, including the terms and conditions for the determination of tariff. The Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, can step in where a case of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness is made out. Similarly, where the delegate of the legislature has failed to follow statutory procedures or to take into account factors which it is mandated by the statute to consider or has founded its determination of tariffs on extraneous considerations, the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review will ensure that the statute is not breached. However, it is no part of the function of the Court to substitute its own determination for a determination which was made by an expert body after due consideration of material circumstances.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Regulation 44.2(d) of the MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 does not suffer from any constitutional or statutory infirmity.
We have, however, furnished reasons of our own for affirming the ultimate decision of the High Court to dismiss the writ petition. We have disapproved of the view of the High Court that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable and accordingly set aside the direction on the imposition of costs. However, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned regulation and accordingly affirm the ultimate conclusion of the High Court to dismiss the writ petition under Article 226. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Citations : AIR 2019 SC 567 : JT 2019 (1) SC 396 : 2019 (1) SCALE 507
Case Number : C.A. No. 879 of 2019 21-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Case Number : C.A. No. 879 of 2019 21-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
2. Rajasthan State Sports Council Secretary v. Uma Dadhich
Service Law - The Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 - Rule 9 (4) does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have occurred.
Citations : 2019 (3) SCALE 90
Case Number : C.A. No. 883 of 2019 21-01-2019
Citations : 2019 (3) SCALE 90
Case Number : C.A. No. 883 of 2019 21-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Utsav, Adv.
Respondent's Advocate : Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. for P. V. Saravana Raja, AOR
Respondent's Advocate : Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. for P. V. Saravana Raja, AOR
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
3. Anil Kumar v. Union of India
Service Law - Promotion - Annual Confidential Report - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) - Rejection of his claim for financial upgradation.
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) - Every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
Fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. Non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. These directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to government servants.
Every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
Referred Cases
Supreme Court - No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated, all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) by reason of its autonomy may have certain administrative privileges. No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated in Dev Dutt’s case (supra), all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court. CSIR was no exception.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 501
Case Number : C.A. No. 888 of 2019 21-01-2019
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) - Every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
Fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. Non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. These directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to government servants.
Every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
Referred Cases
- Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725
- Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566
- Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146
Supreme Court - No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated, all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) by reason of its autonomy may have certain administrative privileges. No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated in Dev Dutt’s case (supra), all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court. CSIR was no exception.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 501
Case Number : C.A. No. 888 of 2019 21-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : D.N. Goburdhun, Adv. Prashant Chaudhary, AOR R.K. Singh, Adv. Syed Jafar Hussain, Adv.
Respondent's Advocate : Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, AOR Vijay Pratap Singh, Adv.
Respondent's Advocate : Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, AOR Vijay Pratap Singh, Adv.
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
4. Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir v. Rajesh
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 144 - Application for Restitution - Section 144 applies to a situation where a decree or an order is varied or reversed in appeal, revision or any other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the purpose. In that situation, the Court which has passed the decree may cause restitution to be made, on an application of any party entitled, so as to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for the decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or modified. The court is empowered to pass orders which are consequential in nature to the decree or order being varied or reversed.
A suit was instituted for a permanent injunction against G restraining from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the agricultural land in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the Trial court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession over the land in dispute. Both the first appeal as well as the second appeal were dismissed. After the disposal of the second appeal, G filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the restoration of possession of the disputed land and for awarding mesne profits. In the present case, the interim order of the Trial court did not require the defendant to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. There was no decree or order of the Trial court by virtue of which the appellant was given possession of the property, nor did any decree or order mandate that the respondent hand over possession to the appellant. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 144, CPC were not attracted there being no variation or reversal of a decree or order as contemplated by Section 144. The remedy of the first respondent, if any, did not lie in an application for restitution before the executing court under Section 144, CPC. The executing court was justified in declining to entertain the application under Section 144, CPC.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 555
Case Number : C.A. No. 880 of 2019 21-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 880 of 2019 21-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Alok Bhachawat, Adv. K.V. Bharathi Upadhayay, Adv. Pratibha Jain, AOR
Respondent's Advocate : Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mayuri Shukla, Adv. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud