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

2013 Supreme(SC) 1013

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra, JJ.
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha – Appellant
Versus
Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9872 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16112 of 2012)
WITH
Bijaya Chandra Jena – Appellant
Versus
Dhobei Sahoo and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9871 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15870 of 2012)
Decided On : 01-11-2013

IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ of quo warranto is not available in service matters.
While issuing a writ of quo warranto there cannot be any direction for recovery of the sum.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of quo warranto - Power to issue writ of quo warranto is limited - Can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules - Consideration of locus standi or delay and laches not relevant for issue of writ of quo warranto. (Para 18)

        AIR 1965 SC 491; (2003) 4 SCC 712; (1993) 4 SCC 119; (2002) 6 SCC 269; (2011) 4 SCC 1 - Relied upon

        (b) Constitution of India - Article 226 - PIL - Scope and ambit re-stated - It is a weapon to mitigate grievances of the poor and the marginalized sections of the society and to check the abuse of power at the hands of the Executive - Has to be used with great care and circumspection - A writ of quo warranto is not maintainable in service matters. (Paras 21 to 28)

        AIR 1984 SC 802; AIR 1987 SC 579; AIR 2007 SC 758; (2010) 3 SCC 402; (2011) 5 SCC 464 - Relied upon

        (2010) 9 SCC 655; (1998) 7 SCC 273; (2004) 3 SCC 349; (2004) 3 SCC 363; (2005) 1 SCC 590; (2005) 5 SCC 136 - Referred

        (c) Service Law - Holding two posts simultaneously - Chairman CESU is honorary post not carrying any honorarium - Appointed CEO - Cannot be said to hold two posts. (Para 39)

        (d) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Utility not sold - Regulatory Commission formulating a scheme for running the utility - Competent to make arrangements for functioning of the Utility - Commission Chairman not getting even honorarium - Asked to function as CEO additionally - Granted honorarium - Not salary - Thus not getting two sets of salaries - Age for making application for post of CEO fixed at 5 years, for three years - Term extendable for three years - Number of extension not limited - Asking Chairman to act as CEO on fixed honorarium - Not an appointment - No infirmity. (Para 41)

        (2010) 9 SCC 655 - Relied upon

        (e) Constitution of India - Article 226 - High Court while issuing writ of quo warranto quashing arrangement of the Chairman, CESU to act as CEO as well, directing recovery of amount paid - Impugned judgment set aside - Order for recovery automatically gets nullified - That apart, held, while issuing a writ of quo warranto there cannot be any direction for recovery of the sum. (Paras 42, 43)

        (1982) 3 SCC 235; 322 US 4 : 88 L Ed 1095 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        A PIL was filed for quashing appointment of the CEO of the CESU, Odisha and recovery of the emoluments paid.

        This petition was allowed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        The impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. Assailing the judgment and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in WP(C) No. 23268 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has quashed the appointment of the respondent No. 5 herein and further directed the present appellant to recover the amount paid to the 5th respondent towards honorarium, in a public interest litigation preferred by the 1st respondent, the present appeals, one by the Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (CESU) and the other by the affected person have been preferred, by special leave. The factual matrix and the bedrock of challenge being similar we shall state the facts which are requisite to understand the controversy.

However, the description of the parties shall be in accordance with their rank ascribed to them in the appeal preferred by CESU.

3. The appellant-CESU has been created under Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, “the Act”) passed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short “the Commission”). CESU is a deemed licensee under the Act for the distribution of electricity in the Central Zone of Odisha. It is necessary to state here that on 1.4.1996 Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 came into force providing for restructuring of the Electricity Sector in the State of Odisha. Thereafter, Orissa Electricity Reform (Transfer of Undertakings, Assets, Liabilities, Proceedings and Personnel) Scheme Rules, 1996 came into existence and on that base a newly constituted, wholly owned Company of the Government of Orissa, namely, Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) was vested with the Transmission, Distribution and Retail Supply functions of the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board. On 1.4.1999 by virtue of Orissa Electricity Reform (Transfer of Assets, Liabilities, Proceedings and Personnel of Grid Corporation of Orissa (GRIDCO) to Distributions Companies) Rules, 1998, the distributions and retail Supply functions of GRIDCO were vested with in four newly constituted Distribution

Companies out of which one was Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (CESCO) which was given the responsibility of Distributions Undertakings of the Central Zone and to carry out them, granted a license for distribution of electricity by the Commission. Be it noted, 51% Shareholding and Management of CESCO vested in a private Company, namely, AES Orissa Distribution Pvt. Ltd. (AESODPL) and the balance 49% was held by GRIDCO. After coming into force of the Act on 10.06.2003 the said arrangement continued as there was nothing inconsistent with the new legislation. On 26.2.2005 as management of AESODPL abandoned the management of CESCO, the license granted in favour of CESCO was revoked by the Commission under Section 19 of the Act w.e.f. 1.04.2005. On 2.04.2005 an Administrator was appointed by the Commission for management and control of CESCO.

4. As the factual matrix would further unfurl on 8.9.2006 the Commission initiated the process for sale of utility of CESCO under Section 20 of the Act. However, as the Utility could not be sold, by order dated 8.9.2006 the Commission created a new Utility, namely, CESU and formulated Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa (Operation and Management) Scheme, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) for Operation and Management of CESU. On 5.5.2007, the Scheme was amended by the Commission. Clause 5 of the Scheme defined the powers and functions of the Chairman, CEO (CEO), Chief Finance Officer (CFO) and Chief Operating Officer (COO). On 31.10 2007, one S.K. Dasgupta was appointed as CEO of CESU with a financial package of Rs. 22 lakhs per annum. On 31.3.2010, respondent No. 5, who had earlier served as Chairman and Managing Director of GRIDCO as well as Member of the Commission from 2001 to 2006 and had forty-five years of experience in the electricity sector was nominated as member as well as Chairman of the Management




















































































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top