2024 Supreme(SC) 24

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6503 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No.6502 of 2022 Civil Appeal No. 4612 of 2023
Decided on : 08-01-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court, while interpreting a particular provision, will have to apply principles of purposive construction – Modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic.
(2) Court should always keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not – Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, court should intervene.

Headnote:

(A) Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 63, 79 and 86 – [Clause 5.15 of Bidding Guidelines] – Power Purchase Agreement – Reduction of quantum by State Commission – Evaluation Committee is empowered to consider, as to whether rates quoted are aligned to market price or not, and that evaluation committee shall have right to reject all price bids if it finds that rates quoted are not aligned to prevailing market price – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has grossly erred in holding that State Commission has no power to go into question, as to whether prices quoted are market aligned or not and also not to take into consideration aspect of consumers’ interest – When Bidding Guidelines itself permit Bid Evaluation Committee to reject all price bids if rates quoted are not aligned to prevailing market prices, there is no question of State Commission being not in a position to go into question as to whether rates quoted are market aligned or not, specifically, in light of ample powers vested with State Commission under Section 86(1)(b) of Electricity Act, which also includes power to regulate prices at which electricity shall be procured from generating companies, etc. – Evaluation committee/BEC would be entitled to reject only such of price bids if it finds that rates quoted by bidders are not aligned to prevailing market prices – It does not stipulate rejection of all bids in bidding process – Finding of APTEL is totally erroneous. (Paras 74, 78, 79 and 88)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – [Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 86(1)(b) – Clause 5.15 of Bidding Guidelines] – Words “all” or “any” will have to be construed in their context taking into consideration scheme and purpose of enactment – What is meaning which legislature intended to give to a particular statutory provision has to be decided by Court on a consideration of context in which word(s) appear(s) and in particular, scheme and object of legislation – Word “all” used in clause 5.15 of Bidding Guidelines, read with legislative policy for which Electricity Act was enacted and read with Section 86(1)(b) of Electricity Act, will have to be construed to be one including “any” – Court, while interpreting a particular provision, will have to apply principles of purposive construction – Modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic – An interpretation which advances purpose of Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen and other which leads to absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy basic scheme and purpose of enactment must be eschewed. (Paras 87, 89 and 90)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition – Alternative remedy – Availability of an alternate remedy is not a complete bar in exercise of power of judicial review by High Courts – But, recourse to such a remedy would be permissible only if extraordinary and exceptional circumstances are made out – When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes remedy or procedure for enforcing right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking discretionary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Recourse to a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India in availability of efficacious alternate remedy under a statute, which is a complete code in itself, was not justified. (Paras 95, 96 and 98)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition – Petition need not be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches – However, if petitioner approaches Court with delay, he has to satisfy Court about justification for delay in approaching Court belatedly – Award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or State, is essentially a commercial transaction – In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations – Even when some defect has been found in decision making process, court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out of a legal point – Court should always keep larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not – Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, court should intervene – Court is not only concerned with merits of decision but also with decision-making process – Unless Court finds that decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, it will not be permissible for Court to interfere with same. (Paras 100, 102 and 103)

Facts of the case:

By impugned judgment and order, High Court held that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein (appellants herein and State of Rajasthan) are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW electricity from successful bidders. It directed writ petitioner-MB Power (respondent No.1 herein) and respondent No.7 - PTC India Ltd. in said writ petition (respondent No.2 in present appeals) to supply 200 MW electricity to respondents therein (appellants herein) within limit of 906 MW.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dated 20th September 2021 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14815 of 2020 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1-M.B. Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited is directed to pay costs, quantified at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) in each case to appellants.

Result : Appeals allowed.