2020 Supreme(Kar) 154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
Aikyam Holdings Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 28664-28665 of 2018
Decided On : 28-02-2020

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - Non-production of extract of Log Book - Power Purchase Agreement - Respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel and resist writ petitions by filing separate Statements of Objections - Both learned Panel Counsel make vociferous submission in justification of impugned order they also seek disposal of writ petitions as having become in fructuous in view of compliance of interim order granted by this Court however it is difficult to non-suit petitioners on alleged ground of in fructuousness since it was only an interim arrangement which obviously is subject to final outcome of main matter - Petitioner-company and respondent-BESCOM had concluded Power Purchase Agreement as per Annexure-C is not in dispute said agreement having been submitted by BESCOM for approval earlier was returned by KERC and that later it was re-submitted by seeking approval is also not in dispute - Respondent-KPTCL vide Commissioning Certificate a copy whereof is at Annexure-H specifically certified that Project has been duly commissioned this certificate is not in dispute it refers to Report of Chief Engineer and Report of Chief Electrical Inspector Executive Engineer of respondent-BESCOM vide letter a copy whereof is at Annexure-K also mentions about generation of units of power by petitioner-company – Held, Petitioners that they have been singled out for a differential treatment KERC has granted approval to all Power Purchase Agreements enlisted in Government Order except that of petitioners though Government had recommended for grant of approval strangely projects for which PPAs got KERC approval were not even commissioned till March whereas petitioners PPA was commissioned almost a year before allegation of petitioners is prima facie substantiated by PPA and connected papers of Power Pvt. Ltd copies whereof are at Annexure-M thus impugned order militates against Equality Clause enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India this apart KERC having granted approval to other similarly if not less favorably circumstanced PPAs has professed a particular standard by which case of petitioners need to be adjudged Justice Frankfurter of U.S. Supreme Court in VITA-Re-LLI vs. SEATON had observed that an Executive Authority must be rigorously held to standards by which it professes its action to be judged and that such Authority must scrupulously observe professed standards on pain of invalidation of an Act in violation thereof this principle is accepted as a norm of our legal system by Apex Court - Last contention of respondents that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment in identical Writ Petition between Surya Energy Photo Voltaic India Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others has denied relief to litigant therein and therefore petitioners herein too being similarly circumstanced cannot be granted relief is untenable true it is that learned Co-ordinate Judge in said case held that approval of PPA by KERC is a sine qua non for its acquiring enforceability essential lies in case at hands is different from one there this Court has not only has no quarrel with ratio of said decision but these writ petitions are structured on said ratio itself an argument by petitioners a bit in variance therewith notwithstanding said case is not an authority for proposition that a party to PPA can never challenge denial of approval thereto by KERC Lord Hals bury more than a century ago in celebrated case - Now before discussing case of Allen vs. Flood A.C. 1 and what was decided therein there are two observations of a general character which court wish to make and one is to repeat what court have very often said before that every judgment must be read as applicable to particular facts proved or assumed to be proved since generality of expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of whole law but governed and qualified by particular facts of case in which such expressions are to be found - Other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides – Court entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it - Such a mode of reasoning assumes that law is necessarily a logical Code whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that law is not always logical at all - Writ petitions succeed