Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1 (GUJ)

Ranip Nagarpalika, Ranip v. A. E. C. LIMITED

1999-01-16

S.K.KESHOTE

body1999
S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) AS in all these Special Civil Applications the common question of facts and law involved and as such are being taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are taken from the Special Civil Application No. 4289/96. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners, who are Nagar Palika of different places in the state of Gujarat is against the inaction on the part of the respondents in not implementing and acting as per the Government resolution dated 15. 7. 1995 whereby it has been resolved to continue the benefit to the petitioner municipalities herein for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 on the same line as it was being enjoyed by the then Nagar Panchayat and for grant of 50% of the benefit for different years as given in the Special Civil applications. ( 4 ) PRIOR to this for area of Ranip, there was Ranip Nagar Panchayat. On 15. 4. 1994 gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 came into force and as per this provision, Ranip Nagar panchayat was converted and became Ranip Municipality. Prior to 15. 4. 1994 from the nagar Panchayat, the respondent company was charging for electricity consumption @ 0. 45 paisa per unit. After 15. 4. 1994, the respondent No. 1 company is charging for the electricity consumption @ Rs. 2. 50 per unit from the petitioner Nagar Palika. The petitioner has come up with the case the from time to time the representations have been made to the State Government in this respect and ultimately, the resolution dated 15. 7. 1995 was came to be made by the State of Gujarat. The copy of the same is there on the record of this Special Civil Application as Annexure-B. Under this resolution what the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges for electricity consumption made by the petitioner has to be charged by the respondent No. 1 company in accordance with the rates as provided therein. But that resolution has not been given effect or implemented by the respondent No. 1 and hence this inaction or adamancy of the respondent No. 1 gives rise cause of action to the petitioner for filing of this Special Civil application before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. But that resolution has not been given effect or implemented by the respondent No. 1 and hence this inaction or adamancy of the respondent No. 1 gives rise cause of action to the petitioner for filing of this Special Civil application before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) THIS writ petition has been admitted by this Court on 24. 6. 1996. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1 has filed the detailed reply to this Special Civil Application. ( 7 ) THE other respondents inclusive of the State of Gujarat felt contended satisfied by showing total silence in the matter as what gives from the facts that they have not chosen to file reply to this Special Civil Application. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this litigation before this Court between the municipalities, a constitutional authority on one side, State of Gujarat and the Ahmedabad Electricity Company on the other side is very difficult to appreciate. The petitioners grievance is that as per the Government resolution dated 15. 7. 1995, the respondent No. 1 company has to charge from them subsidized rate for the consumption of electricity. The companys contention on the other hand is that the benefit, which were available to the Nagar Panchayat with respect to concessions in electricity charges is not available to the converted Nagar Palika. It is the case of the company that a huge amount of electricity charges is due and payable by the petitioner to the company. But as the Collector of Ahmedabad has recommended the company not to disconnect the supply as disconnection thereof will create great problems for residents of the municipality concerned, the company has not disconnected its power connection. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the company urge that the reliance on the resolution of the government dated 15. 7. 1995 by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The company is not under any obligation to pay the amount of subsidy to the petitioner-municipality. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the company urge that the reliance on the resolution of the government dated 15. 7. 1995 by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The company is not under any obligation to pay the amount of subsidy to the petitioner-municipality. It is submitted that the resolution, aforesaid and in particularly of its paragraph No. 3 gives out that the amount of the subsidy is to be paid by the concerned Department or office directly to the concerned local bodies and if there is any legal complication in paying the amounts directly to the concerned local body, the amount is required to place at the disposal of the Director of Municipalities, Ahmedabad, who in its turn will pay the same to the concesne municipalities. Summingup this contention, learned counsel for the company contended that as per the resolution, aforesaid, the concerned department or the office of the Director of Municipalities, as the case may be, is required to pay the amount of subsidy directly to the concerned municipalities and the company is nothing to do with the amount of subsidy and it is not required to charge from the concerned municipalities at the concessional rate for the electricity consumed by it within its area. ( 10 ) IF we go by the facts of this case, the resolution of the government dated 15. 7. 1995 and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the company, the dispute is in fact and substance is in between the petitioner and the State of Gujarat. I find prima facie justification in the approach of the learned counsel for the company that it may be understandable that the electricity be provided by the State of Gujarat to the municipalities at the concessional rate whether the concession to be provided through the company or directly by the State Government, the State Government has to bear the difference of amount of the actual rate to be charged for the consumption of electricity and the concessional rate of electricity at which it is supplied to the municipalities. What he further urged that this deficit is only a concern of the State government and for this it may provide the subsidy to the petitioners hut the petitioner cannot pray for any writ of mandamus against the company directly. What he further urged that this deficit is only a concern of the State government and for this it may provide the subsidy to the petitioners hut the petitioner cannot pray for any writ of mandamus against the company directly. However, in view of the order which I propose to pass in this Special Civil Application it is neither desirable nor appropriate nor necessary to decide this matter on merits. ( 11 ) IN the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Collector, Central Excise, reported in JT 1991 (4) SC 158, their Lords of Supreme Court dealing with the litigation in between the commission and the department of Central Government has observed that no litigation pertaining to dispute between the public undertakings of Central Government and Union of India to come to the Court of tribunal till the matter having been first examined by the committee and its clearance for litigation. The Honble Court has further observed that henceforth it is obligatory for every Court and every tribunal to demand a clearance from the committee before proceeding with the case. The Honble Supreme court has given direction to the Government of India to set up a committee consisting representatives of different ministries to monitor disputes between the ministry and ministry of Government of India, ministry and public sector undertakings of Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves to ensure that no litigation comes to the Court or tribunal without the mailer having been first examined by the committee and its clearance for the litigation. In the litigation in between of the category of the persons, as given out in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the State governments in the respective state, I am of the opinion that the similar committee shall be constituted, so that, this type of litigation may not directly come to the Courts or the tribunals. Earlier also I have given directions in many cases to the State of Gujarat following the decision of the Apex Court for constituting the committee. Earlier also I have given directions in many cases to the State of Gujarat following the decision of the Apex Court for constituting the committee. This is not the one point programme or a committee to be constituted for a particular or individual case but what I have given direction that there should have been a regular committee for this purpose and the litigation of the category as suggested and given out by the Apex Court in the case aforesaid are to be examined by the committee and only on its certification the matter may come in the Courts or tribunals. In the case in hand the litigation is in between the State of Gujarat on the one side and constitutional authority that is municipality on the other side. This dispute pertains to the giving of the subsidy in the matter of the electricity charges, which are being charged from the concerned municipality by the respondent company. It is a different matter that the petitioner has given a colour to this litigation as if the Government resolution aforesaid is binding on the company and straight-a-way the company has to give the concession in the rate of the electricity charges. However, that is not the point to be finally decided here in this case, but even if it is taken to be the case of the petitioner, still ultimately it is the government resolution which comes for interpretation and giving effect thereto in this litigation, has to be examined by a committee and only on its clearance the petitioner could have come to this Court and not otherwise. The committee may examine also whether the resolution of the Government is binding or not on the company. ( 12 ) THE Stage of Gujarat through the Chief Secretary may consider the appointment of a permanent committee for examining the litigation in between the State of Gujarat on one hand and the public sector undertakings owned by it or the constitutional authorities or other corporations or public sector undertakings or statutory authorities etc. , and only after the certification of the committee either party to the litigation may have approach to the Court or the tribunal. , and only after the certification of the committee either party to the litigation may have approach to the Court or the tribunal. It is unfortunate that for want of such a committee, it is a fact of which a notice can be taken that this Court is flooded with the cases of nature where dispute pertains in between the State of Gujarat and its own undertakings or public undertakings or constitutional or statutory authorities etc. It is expected that the State of gujarat keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas commission vs. Collector, Central Excise (Supra) and many decisions given by this Court to constitute a permanent committee in the line of the decision of the Apex Court, so that considerable number of the cases may be reduced from the record of this Court and Court subordinate any also in future avoidable litigation of this category may not come to the courts or the tribunals. It is not gainsay that the litigation filed in the Court against the state of Gujarat costs heavily to it. It is ultimately to bear heavy expenses of the litigation and in case a committee of the nature as what the Apex Court has suggested in constituted, huge amount of the money, which is spent by it in litigating in the Court may be saved, which can be utilized for the development and welfare of the citizens of the state. ( 13 ) THESE Special Civil Applications are disposed of in the terms that the State of gujarat through its Chief Secretary to constitute a high power committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and other members namely the Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Power), the Law Secretary and the Commissioner of the electricity Duty of the State of Gujarat. It is open to the petitioner to file their detailed representation in respect of their grievances made by them in these Special Civil applications to the committee within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Along with this representation, a copy of this judgment may also be sent. On the receipt of this representation, the committee shall decide the same within a period of three months. Along with this representation, a copy of this judgment may also be sent. On the receipt of this representation, the committee shall decide the same within a period of three months. In case, the committee is unable to adjudicate the dispute between the State of Gujarat and the petitioners, then only on its certification, either party to this litigation may approach to the Court and not otherwise. Till these matters are decided by the high power committed, the interim relief which has been granted by this Court in these Special Civil Applications, in the same form in which it is granted, shall continue. These Special Civil Applications and the rule therein stand disposed of in terms aforesaid with no order as to costs. .