Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 255 (JK)

Magpie Hydel Corp. Ltd. v. State

2009-05-22

NISAR AHMAD KAKRU

body2009
1. Writ Petition on hand owes its origin to the policy evolved by the Government vide Govt. order No. 78-PDD of 2003 dated 08-04-2003, superseded by order No. 211-PDD of 2003 dated 09-10-2003, called "the State Hydel Policy" (Policy hereinafter), with an objective to encourage generation of power through small hydro power sources of energy, aimed at promotion of all round development of the region and in pursuance of the said policy, the Government invited bids for identified projects, from the Central Power Utilities, State Governments, Government Entities and their Joint Ventures, besides, Independent Power Producers (for short IPPs). In response thereto, the petitioner applied for three projects, namely Athwatoo (Bandipora), Tangmarg (Baramulla) and Mandi (Poonch) which came to be allotted to him vide allotment Nos. CE/CPD/234-39 dated 02.05.2005, CE/CID/PDC/633-36 dated 20.06.2005 and CE/CID/238-41 dated 02.05.2005 respectively, requiring the parties to enter into the agreements i.e. Implementation agreement and Wheeling and Banking agreement, on mutually agreed terms and conditions within two months to be reckoned from the date of issuance of allotment letters. Case set up by the petitioner is that despite his representations and reminders, the respondents failed to execute the agreements, leaving no option for him but to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Per contra, the respondents have attributed delayed execution of the agreements to the petitioner. 2. Significantly neither of the parties disputes obligation to execute the agreements which intention was expressed unambiguously on 26.03.2009 by learned counsel for the parties during the course of final arguments. It was in that context that the learned appearing counsel for the parties were asked to explore the possibility to come round by execution of agreements. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to report before the Respondent 3-Managing Director (MD hereinafter) on 30.03.2009 with a further direction to inform the Court about the outcome of the meeting on the next date but instead of reporting before the MD, the petitioner through his counsel laid a motion supported by documents to be read as part of his pleadings, contending therein that the petitioners appearance before the MD would be of no relevance because he (MD) had already proposed and recommended the amendments to the draft agreement. The averments made in the application were replied evasively, suggesting neither admission nor denial of the documents, giving rise to a presumption of correctness thereto, for, law is settled that if denial of a fact or a document is not specific but evasive, it amounts to admission of that fact or document as the case may be. The respondents having opted for an evasive reply, the documents could be taken to have been admitted, requiring no further proof, yet with a view to do substantial justice between the parties, further opportunity was granted to the respondents to answer the point of substance, viz. as to whether they admit or deny the documents which was availed of and replies on affidavits were filed, authenticating the contents of the documents filed by the petitioner excepting `annexure A. In that view of the matter, I choose to adjudicate upon the controversy on the basis of those documents only which are admitted by the respondents and to proceed in that direction, the objections filed by the respondents are summarized hereunder; i) In absence of execution of the agreements, the petitioner was not supposed to commence the work on the projects. ii) The petition raises disputed questions of fact therefore, in terms of clause 18 of the policy, the petitioner was required to approach the Government for settlement of the dispute. iii) The delay in execution of agreements is caused by the petitioner and not by the respondents; iv) Because of non execution of the Implementation agreement, wheeling and banking agreement could not be executed and signed. 3. Having taken note of the objections, I would like to scrutinize them in seriatim. iii) The delay in execution of agreements is caused by the petitioner and not by the respondents; iv) Because of non execution of the Implementation agreement, wheeling and banking agreement could not be executed and signed. 3. Having taken note of the objections, I would like to scrutinize them in seriatim. Beginning with the first one that the petitioner could not have commenced the work without execution of agreements, reference to condition (4) of the allotment letters becomes imperative which reads; "Notwithstanding execution of formal agreement on a subsequent date, the milestones mentioned in the bid document will be reckoned from the date of issuance of this letter of allotment........." In addition to that, the respondents had reminded the petitioner about the import of the condition vide their communication bearing No. CE/C1D/PDC/2185 dated 10.01.2006, relevant paragraph whereof reads: ".....Delay in drawl/acceptance shall have no impact on the allotment of projects." Gravamen of the condition extracted above is, that non execution of the agreements on a subsequent date would not furnish an escape route to the petitioner in achievement of milestones mentioned in the bid document and same shall have to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment. That being the mandate of the condition of the allotment letters, absence of a formal agreement by no stretch of imagination could work as an impediment for execution of the project, obviously objection fails. 4. This takes me to the second objection traceable to clause 18 of the policy, extracted hereunder: "18. POWER TO RESOLVE DIFFICULTIES: 18.1. In the event of a dispute, the interpretation of these guidelines made by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir shall be final. In all such matters, to the extent practicable, an opportunity shall be given to the affected stakeholders to be heard before the Government takes any decision." Relying on the clause, Mr. Beg has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that non execution of the agreements has given rise to a disputed question of fact which could be resolved by arbitration by the Government. The argument is raised for the sake of argument and is liable to be summarily rejected for the simple reason that the parties are not at variance in respect of requirement of execution of the agreements. The argument is raised for the sake of argument and is liable to be summarily rejected for the simple reason that the parties are not at variance in respect of requirement of execution of the agreements. Going by clause 18 and its title, it is clear that in case difficulties arise to understand the guidelines, interpretation shall be by the Government but fact remains that both the parties have no difficulty in understanding the ambit of the guidelines necessitating execution of the agreements to which requirement and understanding, none of them is averse, therefore, no interpretation of the guidelines in terms of clause 18 is called for. Apparently, the objection is based on misunderstanding of the clause and same being bereft of logic, fails. 5. Dealing with the delayed execution of the agreements attributed to the petitioner by the respondents, reference to the admitted documents forming part of the pleadings becomes obligatory, perusal whereof reveals that failure of the respondents to execute the agreements within the stipulated period had constrained the petitioner to demand in writing execution of the agreements vide his communications (annexure E & F to the writ petition) which were replied by them vide their communication bearing No. CE/CID/PDC/2185 dated 10-01-2006 and the relevant paragraph reads: "It is to inform that the agreements are under process of scrutinizing with the corporate office and are to be drawn shortly..........." The agreements were not executed. Demands were reiterated by the petitioner, resultantly a meeting was taken by authorities at the helm on 14-05-2006 in the Corporate office of the Jammu & Kashmir State Power Development Corporation (for brevity J&KSPDC) under the Chairmanship of the MD, which ended with a resolution, relevant para whereof is extracted hereunder for facility of ready reference: "3) It was informed that these agreements have to be examined at various levels at Secretariat and may take sometime........." Minutes of the meeting reproduced make it clear that the respondents were contemplating to examine the agreements at various levels including the Secretariat level, accordingly the IPPs were directed to wait for some time but contemplated process did not end up and situation having remained the same, further demands were made by the petitioner through communications addressed to the Chief Engineer who took up the matter with the higher authorities vide his communication No. CE/CID/PDC/CJ/27 dated 28-11-2006, relevant paragraph whereof reads: "The agency has already started implementation in terms of the allotment order wherein the date of allotment has been reckoned as the date of start of project and irrespective of formal drawl of these agreements for implementation, the agency is executing the same as per the said terms and conditions but he is facing problems in absence of these documents with the financial institutions. It is once again requested that formal agreements may kindly be got finalized by the Administrative Department..........." The petitioners demand was ultimately responded to vide communication of the MD bearing No. PDC/PF/CJ/1846-47 dated 28.01.2009. What happened during the interregnum, need not detain me because the said communication gives the details of the deliberations those have taken place till issuance of the communication. Interestingly, there is no mention, not even worth the name which would attribute delay in execution of the agreements to the petitioner and could not be, because fact remains that final amendments to the implementation agreement have been recommended by the MD on 28.01.2009 (annexure `B page 13 to CMP 513/09). Thus on the face of the pleadings besides, the documents drafted, authenticated and admitted by the respondents, attempt on their part to attribute the delayed execution of the implementation to the petitioner fails. 6. Now fourth and the last objection, that in absence of the Implementation agreement, the Wheeling and Banking Agreement could not be executed and signed. Thus on the face of the pleadings besides, the documents drafted, authenticated and admitted by the respondents, attempt on their part to attribute the delayed execution of the implementation to the petitioner fails. 6. Now fourth and the last objection, that in absence of the Implementation agreement, the Wheeling and Banking Agreement could not be executed and signed. To appreciate the contention reference to the policy of the Government, conferring and creating rights and duties respectively, on the parties becomes necessary and the relevant clause being 7.4 of para 7 is extracted : "The J&K PDD will prepare a standard "wheeling and banking agreement draft" consistent with this policy statement. This will be made available prior to any bidding for projects." A plain reading of the clause would show that it is obligatory upon the respondents to prepare a standard Wheeling and Banking Agreement draft before going for bidding of the projects. Mr. Beg could not point out any clause of the policy which would provide for execution of agreements at different stages or one after another. His failure to support the objection by policy or documentary proof, suggests it to be an objection for the sake of an objection, having no foundation. More so, the respondents have on their own interpreted the policy to the effect that the delay in drawl/acceptance shall have no impact on the allotment of projects and accordingly notified the petitioner (for details see para 3 hereinabove), fall out being no rigid adherence to the execution of the agreements in a particular sequence. Responding to the objection. Mr. Shah contended that the objection is belied by documentary evidence. To bring home the point reference is made by him to the MDs letter No. PDC/PF/CJ/1846-47 dated 28.01.2009 (annexure B) wherein the J&KSPDC has sought indulgence of the Commissioner Secretary, to direct the Development Commissioner (Power) to execute the Wheeling and Banking agreement in spite of non-execution of the Implementation agreement. He has also placed reliance on the communication of the Development Commissioner (Power) bearing No. DC/PD/PO-1/144/2146-50 dated 06.04.2009. Before adverting to it, a few proceedings recorded in the petition on hand and relevant to the objection are extracted; "Mr. He has also placed reliance on the communication of the Development Commissioner (Power) bearing No. DC/PD/PO-1/144/2146-50 dated 06.04.2009. Before adverting to it, a few proceedings recorded in the petition on hand and relevant to the objection are extracted; "Mr. Shah, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Development Commissioner (Power) has forwarded the Wheeling and Banking Agreement to the Respondent 1-Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Department, vide his No. DC/PD/PO-1/144/2146-50 dated 06-04-2009, for its vetting by the Law Department which refutes the objection raised by Mr. Beg, that Wheeling and Banking Agreement cannot be brought into being unless Implementation Agreement is executed. Communication is taken on record with liberty to Mr. Beg to rebut it, if so advised by the respondents. He shall obtain instructions in view of the contents of the communication. Be listed on 11.5.2009." Order dated 11.05.2009 "Nothing, in rebuttal to the communication of the Development Commissioner (Power) bearing No. DC/PD/PO-1/144/2146-50 dated 06-04-2009, is brought on record. In response to the direction requiring Mr. Beigh to seek instructions in respect of the communication, he submits that he is under instructions to have the matter decided on its merits. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Judgment reserved." Contention of Mr. Shah is that the communication of the Development Commissioner (Power) bearing No. DC/PD/PO-1/144/2146-50 dated 06.04.2009 unveils the fact, that the Wheeling and Banking Agreement after its completion by the Department is awaiting vetting by the Law Department. The respondents having failed to rebut the communication of the Development Commissioner Power, therefore, in law, attracts presumption of correctness, coupled with the communication of the J&KSPDC, seeking execution of the Wheeling and Banking agreement admittedly in absence of Implementation agreement makes it clear that the objection has no basis. These legal and factual aspects remained unanswered on the part of the respondents. However their counsel has reiterated that he is under instructions to canvass that the execution of Implementation Agreement should be prior in time. On what material, although pointedly asked but he could refer to none. These legal and factual aspects remained unanswered on the part of the respondents. However their counsel has reiterated that he is under instructions to canvass that the execution of Implementation Agreement should be prior in time. On what material, although pointedly asked but he could refer to none. Examining the issue in the light of the pleadings and available and admitted documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that the respondents have understood the ambit of the agreement, therefore, they have proceeded towards finalization of the agreements without subjecting execution of one agreement to the completion and execution of the other, a correct understanding of the stipulations of the policy. The objection raised by Mr. Beg, to say the least, is just in air and devoid of force, thus fails. 7. Mr. Shah on the strength of averments made in the pleadings, argued that the petitioner has invested more than rupees 77 crores in setting up the Hydel Project at Athwatoo Bandipora which has become fit for generation many weeks back and factum of fitness stands certified by the Chief Electrical Inspector vide fitness certificate issued under No. DTTIC/2303-06 dated 13.03.2009 but is prevented to generate the electricity because of failure of the respondents to discharge their obligations, cast upon them by the Policy relied upon by both the parties and in the process he is subjected to a huge loss by way of interest, payable by him to the financial institutions which have financed his project. He argued further that the demands of the petitioner, verbal and writing did not evoke any response on the part of the respondents, leaving no option for him but to approach the court. It was also contended that even directions passed from time to time by the Chief Minister, requiring the respondents to finalize the agreements and the latest being written direction, communicated vide No. DC/PD/TO-1/144/1723 dated 13-02-2009 did not witness compliance, net result being, delay in generation of electricity by the petitioners project, consequently, enormous loss to the petitioner. It was also argued that the petitioners victimization is a clear instance of red tapism and administrative lapses, which has at the same time burdened the State exchequer by expenditure incurred on the officers/ officials of the Corporation/Department assisting the counsel besides direct expenses on the litigation which expenditure in the given facts according to Mr. It was also argued that the petitioners victimization is a clear instance of red tapism and administrative lapses, which has at the same time burdened the State exchequer by expenditure incurred on the officers/ officials of the Corporation/Department assisting the counsel besides direct expenses on the litigation which expenditure in the given facts according to Mr. Shah merits recovery from the respondents-officers by imposition of costs. 8. The submissions of Mr. Shah recorded in the preceding paragraph need to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the respondents have admitted the requirement of execution of the agreements but contention of their counsel is that Implementation agreement has to be executed before execution of Wheeling and Banking agreement, a contention not countenanced by the Policy. It is manifest that the respondents are not averse to the execution of the agreements. It is also not disputed that the projects were allotted to the petitioner for development who has not only altered his position but has already completed one out of the three projects namely Athwatoo (Bandipora), yet agreements await execution consequently litigation at the cost of public money that too on avoidable litigation. The documentary evidence finding place on the record would show that absence of promptitude on the part of the respondents in finalization of the agreements is writ large. It is saddening to note that even interim direction dated 22-10-2008 passed by the court, in essence commanding the respondents to consider the demand of the petitioner seeking execution of agreements was not complied with. Had they accorded consideration in compliance with the direction, in all probability the burden of litigation on the State exchequer would have been avoided. In the given circumstances of the case, claim staked by Mr. Shah for imposition of exemplary costs cannot be said to be without substance but having noticed that the Wheeling and Banking Agreement has reached the Law Department for vetting and the Implementation Agreement is awaiting clearance at the level of the Commissioner/ Secretary PDD, a lenient view is called for, with a hope that in future the respondents functionaries of the State Government would be more careful, hence no order to costs. 9. 9. In totality of the circumstances, the respondents are directed to take steps for execution of agreements relating to three projects, namely Athwatoo (Bandipora), Tangmarg (Baramulla) and Mandi (Poonch) allotted for development to the petitioner vide allotment Nos. CE/CPD/234-39 dated 02.05.2005, CE/CID/PDC/633-36 dated 20.06.2005 and CE/CID/238-41 dated 02.05.2005 respectively. Pending execution of the agreements, the respondents shall take requisite steps forthwith to facilitate banking of electric energy by the petitioner and the energy so supplied by the petitioner at the connecting point shall be recorded regularly by the respondents but the entitlement of the petitioner in lieu of such banking of electric energy shall depend upon the terms and conditions of the agreements to be executed by the parties in terms of the policy. However, regard being had to the fact that the petitioner is not going to get anything in return from the respondents before execution of the agreements, the steps for execution of the agreements shall have to be taken by the respondents without loss of time. Needless to say that undue delay if any shall be at their own peril and costs. 10. Disposed of along with CMPs. Interim direction dated 22.10.2008 shall merge in this final pronouncement.