LexM/S M.R.F. LTD. ETC. versus MANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 --// • [2010J '5 S.C.R. 1081 M/S M.R.F. LTD: ETC. v. MANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS. (Civi!Appeal No. 4220 of 2002 etc.) MAY 3, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] · Rules of Business of the Government of Goa: A B rr. 3, 6, 7 and 9 - Decision taken by Minister of Power c allowing rebate in electricity tariff- Matter notreferred to Chief Minister or the· Council of Ministers - Nor wa_s_ the concurrence of Finance Department taken - HELD: Such a decision cannot be said. to be the deCision 'of the Government - Notifications giving effect to such· decisions without complying D with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution,· are non-est and void ab initio .:.. High Court has rightly held the Rules of Business as mandatory - In the instant case, there is sufficient doubt with regard to the conduct of the Minister of Power in issuing the_ notifications - E therefore, suspicion of irregularity renders- the doctrine of indoor management inapplicable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 154 and 166 - Doctrine of indoor Management - Public Interest Litigation. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: · F s.11, 0.2, r.2 - Res judicata - Withdrawal of electri_city tariff rebate granted as per Notifications challenged in writ· petitions - Upheld by High Court - But writ petitioners held entitled to the rebate for the periods indicated in the judgment G - SLPs dismissed- Subsequent writ petition irrpublic interest filed challenging validity and legality of the Notifications - HELD: In the earlier litigation, issue of validity or legality of the Notifications was never raised, nor the writ petitioner in the 1081 H 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. A subsequent writ petition was a party thereto - Merely because the State Government did not agitate legality or validity of the notifications in earlier round of litigation, it cannot be deemed to have accepted legality for the .Notifications, or waived its objection thereto - Therefore, the principles of res judicata B and the doctrine of estoppel have no application - Since the issue that was decided by High· Court in earlier round of litigation and the issue raised and considered in subsequent public interest 1Yrit petition are entirely different, doctrine of merger has also no bearing _.: Estoppe/ - Rules of Business · c of Government ot Goa 7 Doctrine of merger. . ( . ·.· ··.· .. ·· . .. • .. · . . ... The Government of Goa issued notification dated 30.9.1991 granting: rebate· of 25% iri •electricity· tariff in respect of power. supply to the low tensiOn and high tension industrial ·consurners. The said notification was D late'r rescinded ·by another Notification. dated• 31.3.1995. l Howey~r, on 15.5.19~6. an~t.her notification was issued amending .the not1f1cat1on dated 30.9.1991 and substituting the words• "high tension or low tensfori power supply", by words' "high tension/extra high tension E or low tensiOn p·ower supply". A further notification dated '.j1.8.1996 was issued ·rest§ring the facility of 25% .reb.ate w.e.f.1.8.1996. By an order dated 31.3.1998 issued by the Chief Electrical Engineer,' the benefits of rebate granted under Notification dated 1r8.1996 were withdrawn, This F led to a spate of litigation by the industrial units before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Cabinet passed a resolution and,' accordingly, by issuing the notificatiori"dated 24;7.1998 the State · Government Withdrew the benefit of 25% rebate. The High G · Coui1,1tiy·its'order dated 21.1.1999, disposed of the writ petitions holding the circular/order dated 31.3.1998 as invalid and the notification dated 24.7.1998 as legal, valid ·~md operative. However, the High Court held that all the petitioners were entitled to 25% rebate in power tariff for H the periods as indicated in the judgment. The appeals M.R.F. LTD. ETC. v. MANOHAR PARRIKAR AND 1083 ORS. challenging the judgment of the High Court were A dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 13.2.2001. Respondent No. 1 (in CA No. 4220 of 2002) challenged the correctness of the notifications dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 by filing a writ petition under public interest and sought to declare the two notifications B as null and void. It was stated that as the said notifications were issued only at the instance of the Minister of Power, the same could not be terme·d as decisions of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.