ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus SANTWANT SINGH GILL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 24-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ORJSSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
SANTWANT SINGH GILL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
JULY 24, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
c 
Appeal-First appeal--High Court dismissed same without considering 
two relevant issues-Hence directed to re-examine the matter-Re-
consideration limited to the said two issues. 
Review petition-Not maintainable before High Court, when basic 
issues relating to alleged grievances not placed for consideration before the 
High Court earlier. 
Original Respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement with the 
D Executive Engineer, lndravati Dam Division for concrete-cum-masonry work 
of the lndravati Dam. Disputes arosl! with regard to the agreement Respondent 
No. I filed money suit against Respondents No.2 to 4 i.e. the State Government; 
the General Manager, Upper lndravati Hydro-electric project and the Executive 
Engineer, lndravati Dam Division. The suit was decreed. Respondents No.2 to 
E 4 filed first appeal before the High Co!irt which was dismissed. 
Pursuant to enforcement of the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 
and the Rules framed thereunder, the Hydro Electric Project alongwith all 
its circles and Divisions with all assets and liabilities was transferred by the 
State Government to the appellant-corporation. Appellant filed review 
F application before High Court with regard to the First Appeal. The application 
was dismissed. Hence the present two appeals, one against the judgment 
rendered by High Court in the First Appeal and the other against the order 
passed on review application filed by Appellant. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Several relevant factors have not been considered by the High 
Court; for example the effect of the letter purported to have been written by 
Respondent No. 1. [816-Cj 
812 
ORIS SA HYDRO POWER COPR. LTD. "· SANTWANT SINGH GILL (DEAD) BY LRS. [PASA YAT, J] 
813 
1.2. The High Court has not made any effort to find out as to whether A 
the work in question was extra work and/or covered by agreement. If it was 
covered by the agreement, the question of assurance, if any, given as claimed 
is inconsequential. If it was a part of agreement it was to be covered by the 
rate stipulated. In that event there is no question of any assurance having any 
role to play. This aspect has also not been considered by the High Court. B 
Additionally, if work was to be completed by 2.8.1985 as claimed by the 
respondents, the question of any payment being made for idle work beyond 
the said date does not arise. This aspect was also required to be analysed by 
the High Court which has not been done. In the fitness of nature, therefore, 
;. 
the High Court should re-examine the matter on the aforesaid two aspects 
and decide the matter in accordance with law. (816-E-G) 
c 
2. However the High Court had rightly rejected the review petition. Since 
the basic issues relating to alleged grievances were not placed for 
consideration before the High Court earlier there was no scope for 
entertaining a review petition. (817-A) 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3113 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.2002 of the High Court of 
Orrisa at Cuttak, in First Appeal No. 168/1991. 
WITH 
E 
C.A. No. 3114/2006. 
Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellant. 
Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, S.K. Sanganeria, Jamshed Bey and F 
Parmanand Gaur for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
The appeal arising out ofSLP(C) No.17187 of2003 is directed against G 
the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the 
First Appeal. The appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 16439 of2003 is against the 
order passed on a review application filed by the appellant relating to the 
connected first appeal. 
' 
H 
::io. 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows : 
An agreement bearing No. 21 F2 of 1984-85 was executed between the 
original respondent Santwant Singh Gill (who has died in the mean time and 
is represented by his legal representatives) and the Executive Engineer, lndravati 
Dam Division for construction of Concrete-cum-Masonry work of the lndravati 
B Dam of Block No. 18 upto RI 625.5. Stipulated dates of commencement of work 
and completion of work were 2.2.1985 and 1.5.1985 respectively. Since the 
respondent did not complete the work and did not participate in the 
measurement, by let
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.