SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(J&K) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling As - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir - Respondent
WP(C) No. 237 of 2024 CM No. 545 of 2024
Decided On : 02-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C. M. Koul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate & Mr. A. R. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D. C. Raina, Advocate General with Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R – 1 & 2. Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate & Mr. A. P. Singh, Advocate for R – 3 & 4.

A foreign company lacks locus standi to maintain a writ petition without joining necessary consortium members, and the authority of its representative to file the petition was insufficient.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition maintainability - The petitioner, a foreign company, lacked locus standi to file the writ petition without joining other consortium members, as it was not a successor to the original parties involved in the project. The court emphasized that the writ petition could not be maintained solely by the petitioner without the necessary parties being included. (Paras 1, 84, 92, 120)

(B) Authority to file - The authority of the representative to file the writ petition was questioned, as the authorization letter did not adequately empower him to act on behalf of the consortium. (Paras 103, 106)

(C) Judicial review - The court reiterated that it cannot substitute its views on the merits of the case unless the state action is arbitrary or violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 12, 114)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS, filed a writ petition regarding the Sawalkote Hydro-Electric Project, claiming rights as a special purpose vehicle. However, it failed to include other consortium members, raising questions about its legal standing.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked the necessary legal status and locus to maintain the writ petition, as it was not a recognized successor to the original consortium members.

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioner alone and the authority of the representative to file the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not maintain the writ petition without the inclusion of other necessary parties and that the authority of the representative was insufficient.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Whether the petitioner-M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS has any actual status and locus to be a petitioner to maintain the present writ petition, with respect to purported cause of action forming subject matter of the writ petition, is a preliminary aspect without first dealing with which the adjudication of the writ petition, on its core-cause, may amount to be putting the cart before the horse.

2. It is in said context that this Court came to draw an order dated 15.04.2024 which has led to address of submissions from both sides, in particular from the petitioner’s side, with respect to the petitioner’s purported status and locus in maintaining the present writ petition.

3. Before this court comes to deal with the effort and energy invested submissions on the part of Senior Advocate Mr. C.M. Koul arguing for the petitioner, the facts of the case in a chronological manner need to be fetched and laid out at first so as to subserve the perspective in which the issue of status and locus of the petitioner- M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS has self-popped to invite and engage the court’s attention for adjudication.

4. The petitioner-M/s Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (in short“SPAS") introduces itself to be a company incorporated under the Norwegian Companies Registration Statute bearing registration No. 982809541 with its registered office in Daelitoppen, 1383 Asker. In the writ petition itself, there is no averment with respect to the corporate introduction and identity of the petitioner as to when and where it came to be incorporated and in which role and status it has come to bear an alleged cause of action or nexus therewith to come up with the present writ petition. It is only by gathering facts from the pleadings and documents on the record of this writ petition that this court is able to figure out the petitioner’s true character and credentials, which will be adverted to later herein related to its locus.

5. Mr. Sverre Henning Fjeldstad is being introduced to be the Managing Director of the petitioner-SPAS.

6. The petitioner-SPAS, as being a foreign based company, in its individual capacity has come forward with the present writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India .

7. The writ petition came to be instituted on 09.02.2024 through Mr. Jatinder Lal Kaul, by virtue of a purported authority letter dated 20/12/2023 authored by Mr. Sverre Henning Fjeldstad wherein Mr. Jatinder Kaul is mentioned to be a local representative in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. Authority Letter dated 20/12/2023 has been attested by Notary Public Jonathan Haug whose attestation certificate bears reference that Mr. Sverre Henning Fjeldstad is authorized to sign alone on behalf of Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS, enterprise number 982809541

8. Acting under the then constitutional status in terms of article 370 of the Constitution of India , the Govt., of erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir (“State of J&K” in short) came to create a corporate entity with respect to power stations and power projects in the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir (now Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir) and the corporate entity so created isthe Jammu & Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Limited (in short “JKSPDC”) incorporation whereof took place under the Companies Act, 1956 (now repealed) and figures as the respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition.

9. The respondent No. 2–JKSPDC is now re-named as the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Corporation Limited (“JKPDC” in short) with omission of word ‘State’ from the original name and identification.

10. Before the incorporation of the respondent No. 2-JKSPDC as a corporation, it was the Govt. of J&K’s Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Department (in short “JKPDD”) which used to look after every facet and aspect of electricity and power generation in the State of Jammu & Kashmir right from development, maintenance, operation, transmission, dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top