2012 (2) Supreme 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Union of India through General Manager Northern Railways — Petitioner
versus
Chairman, UP State Electricity Board & Ors. — Respondents
Transferred Case No.37 of 2001
with
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Railway Board through its Chairman & Ors. — Respondents
Transferred Case No.38 of 2001
Decided on : 9-2-2012
(b) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 26A(!) r/w section 43A, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 – Section 26A(1) exempts a generating company from taking out a licence – In terms of section 43A a generating company can enter into PPA with approval of the competent Government – NTPC and Railways entering into a PPA with approval of competent Government – No infirmity. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
1. UPSEB was purchasing power from the power plants of NTPC, and supplying the same to Northern Railways through transmission lines of the UPSEB.
2. Railways found the tariff of UPSEB to be excessive, and therefore, decided to enter into a power purchasing agreement with NTPC, and to construct their own transmission lines to carry the supply.
3. Railways entered into the necessary power purchasing agreement with NTPC in March 1998.
4. UPSEB issued a threat to the Railways to demolish the said transmission lines,
5. Writ filed by the Railways was allowed.
6. After the construction of transmission lines was completed, the Railways started drawing power from the NTPC power plants.
7. UPSEB filed writ petition against this action of the Railways.
Finding of the Court:
The Railways and the NTPC have acted in accordance with law.
JUDGEMENT
H.L. Gokhale J.
Both these transferred cases are concerning the legality of construction of the transmission lines by Northern Railways to draw power from the power plants of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (‘NTPC’ for short), and no more from the transmission lines of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (‘UPSEB’ for short), through which they were drawing power earlier.
Facts leading to these transferred cases are as follows:-
2. UPSEB was purchasing power from the power plants of NTPC, and supplying the same to Northern Railways through transmission lines of the UPSEB. Railways found the tariff of UPSEB to be excessive, and therefore, decided to enter into a power purchasing agreement with NTPC, and to construct their own transmission lines to carry the supply. The Railways moved the Central Govt. for permission in this behalf, and obtained approval from the cabinet committee on 6.6.1990. This was recorded in the then Railway Minister’s letter addressed to the then Minister of Energy dated 24.8.1990. Later, it was decided that 100 MW power will be allocated to the Railways from Dadri Gas Station of NTPC. In case of a shortfall, the requirement would be met from the Auraria Gas Station of NTPC. The above allocation to Railways was to be subject to entering into a power purchasing agreement with NTPC. This is recorded in the letter dated 10.2.1998 from Deputy Secretary to the Ministry of Power addressed to the Chairman, Central Regulatory Electricity Authority. Accordingly, Railways entered into the necessary power purchasing agreement with NTPC in March 1998.
3. Thereafter, Railways started constructing transmission lines from Dadri Gas Power Plant and Auraria Gas Power Plant of NTPC upto the sub-station of Railways at Dadri, District Ghaziabad, U.P. This led to UPSEB to issue a threat to demolish the said transmission lines, and a notice was issued to the Railways on 7.9.1999. The notice was issued by the Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, U.P. State Electricity Board, Ghaziabad, U.P. to the Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction), Northern Railways, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi, calling upon the Railways to immediately stop the activity of construction of distribution/service lines. The notice further stated that if the Railways did not stop or refrain from these activities inspite of receipt of the notice, UPSEB will be constrained to take steps of its own for demolition of the said lines and will also sue for damages suffered or to be suffered by UPSEB consequent upon this construction.
4. This notice led the Railways to file Writ Petition No.6802/1999 in the High Court of Delhi to challenge the said notice. The High Court vide its order dated 9.11.1999 stayed operation of this notice/order. The High Court subsequently passed another order on 12.5.2000 allowing the Railways to carry on their work of construction.
5. After the construction of transmission lines was completed, the Railways started drawing power from the NTPC power plants through those lines. That led UPSEB to file Writ Petition No.3588/2001 in Allahabad High Court to challenge the act of Railways of drawing electrical energy from NTPC through Railway’s own service lines.
6. Since, two petitions were filed in two different High Courts arising out of the same cause of action, the Railways sought transfer of these two writ petitions to the Supreme Court of India, in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. The same having been allowed, W.P. No.6802/1999 in Delhi High Court has been numbered as Transferred Case No.37/2001 and W.P. 3588/2001 in Allahabad High Court has become Transferred Case No.38/2001 in this Court.
7. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways is the petitioner in Transferred Case No.37/2001. Railway Board, General Manager Northern Railways and Dy. Chief Engineer/Electrical (Construction) of Northern Railways are respondent No.1 to 3 in Transferred Cas
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.