THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT & ORS. versus RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 13-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
507
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT & ORS.
v.
RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8550 of 2022)
JANUARY 13, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Contract:  Rights and liabilities of the parties stand crystallized
on the date of entering into the agreement – In the instant case,
appellant and respondent No.1 entered into agreement dated
22.05.2012 which categorically stated that respondent No.1 would
pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare towards irrigation restoration
charge – On the same day, respondent No.1 also gave an
undertaking that it would pay the stipulated sum within a specific
period of time – Thus, right from the very beginning i.e., in the
sanction order, the demand notice and in all its letters, the appellant
had stipulated a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare as irrigation
restoration charges – In fact, all these communications get subsumed
in the agreement dated 22.05.2012 – Thus, respondent No.1 was
not justified in challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 when it itself
had agreed to the same – Signing the agreement and issuing an
undertaking would restrain Respondent No.1 from challenging the
levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges – Also on the
aspect of differential treatment alleged, government gave reasonable
and sufficient explanation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The argument that it is the rate prevailing on
the date of grant of in-principle approval which would govern
Respondent No.1 is not acceptable. The rights and liabilities of
the parties stand crystallized on the date of entering into the
agreement, which is 22.05.2012. Therefore, the rate prevailing
on 22.05.2012 would govern the parties. [Para 18][514-H; 515-
A]
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 507
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
2. On the aspect of differential treatment, Respondent No.1
alleges that it has been discriminated when compared to eight
other companies. This allegation is denied by the Government
and they have explained this aspect in their rejoinder filed before
this Court and also in the counter and sur-rejoinder filed before
the High Court. By referring to these records, in as many as four
power generators are concerned, the in-principle approval
granted in their favor has itself been cancelled as they had failed
to execute an agreement with the Appellant. A Central
Government undertaking was given an exemption since the
power produced by the said company was to be used for public
benefit. One company was charged Rs.50,000 since the
agreement was entered into on 22.09.2008, and as on that date,
the prevalent rate was Rs. 50,000 per hectare. Further, one other
power generator was given an exemption because there was no
loss of irrigation potential due to diversion of water. Another
company was charged Rs. 50,000 per hectare since the water to
be diverted in favor of the said company was minimal and more
importantly, that particular area was not a water deficit area. In
comparison, Respondent No.1 is drawing a high amount of water
from an area where water is a scarce resource. This is a
reasonable and sufficient explanation. [Para 19][515-B-E]
3.1 The relief claimed in this Writ Petition is similar to the
prayer in the Writ Petition which was disposed of on 22.11.2012.
Even in that proceeding, Respondent No.1 had raised similar
arguments. They were countered by the State by contending that
there existed an agreement between the parties which stipulated
a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges, and
pursuant to this agreement, Respondent No.1 had even issued
an undertaking. [Para 20][515-F-G]
3.2 The High Court merely directed the concerned authority
to take a decision on the representations made by Respondent
No.1 within a period of eight weeks, and if the same came to be
decided in the favor of Respondent No.1, then Respondent No.1
could take such measures in law to seek a refund. The High
Court refrained from granting a stay on the payment of the second
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
instalment. In compliance with the direction of the High Court,
the Government considered the matter and it rejected the
representation on 29.01.2013. In that view of the matter, the High
Court committed an error in entertaining a fresh writ petition,
which effectively claimed the same reliefs as of the previous one.
The High Court committed a mistake in not only entertaining
the writ petition, but also in supplant

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.