Summary
Industrial units whose power supply began after the Goa notification of 30.09.1991 granting a 25% tariff rebate was rescinded with effect from 01.04.1995 could not claim the rebate under it. The 1996 amending notifications were void ab initio, and the units' challenge to recovery notices under the Goa rebate recovery Act of 2002 was barred by res judicata in view of the GR Ispat decision. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the appellant-companies were covered by the notification dated 30.09.1991 so as to be entitled to the 25% rebate on electricity tariff, when power supply was effected after its rescission.
- Whether the demand notices issued under Section 3 of the Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002 were valid.
- Whether the writ petitions were barred by res judicata in view of the earlier High Court decision in GR Ispat Ltd. v. Chief Electrical Engineer, affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- Whether promissory estoppel prevented the State from withdrawing the rebate.
- Whether an appeal lies against an order rejecting a review application.
Provisions considered
- Section 3, Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002Provides for refund of the 25% rebate availed under the notifications of 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996. The Act having been upheld in Goa Glass Fibre, and the appellants not being covered by the 1991 notification, the demand notices under it were valid. (¶¶ 4, 15, 28)
- Sections 23 and 51-A, Indian Electricity Act, 1910Source of power for the 1991 tariff notification granting a 25% rebate for five years from the date of supply, and for its rescission by the notification of 31.03.1995; noted as the basis of the notifications. (¶ 4)
- Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897Invoked, with the 1910 Act, in the notification of 31.03.1995 rescinding the 1991 notification with effect from 01.04.1995; noted, not separately construed. (¶ 4)
- Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The principle of res judicata, embodied in Section 11 but not confined to it, applies to writ petitions under Article 226 and barred the appellants from reopening issues decided in GR Ispat. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Order XLVII Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908An order rejecting a review application is not appealable, so the appeals against dismissal of the review applications were misconceived. (¶ 30)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaRes judicata applies to petitions under writ jurisdiction (T.P. Moideen Koya v. State of Kerala). (¶ 24)
Held
- The 1991 notification gave the rebate for five years from the date electricity supply was effected and remained in force only until 31.03.1995. Units whose supply was effected after that date could not claim the rebate under it, irrespective of when they had applied for power. (¶¶ 19, 20, 31)
- The appellants could not rely on the amending notifications of 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996, since they were declared non-est and void ab initio in Manohar Parrikar v. State of Goa, which the Supreme Court affirmed. (¶ 20)
- The 2002 Act having been upheld in Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. v. State of Goa, the demand notices issued under Section 3 suffered from no illegality. (¶¶ 15, 28)
- Res judicata applies to writ proceedings. The High Court's decision in GR Ispat, which the Supreme Court declined to disturb, had attained finality and bound the appellant-companies, so they could not reopen the litigation by claiming five years' rebate under the 1991 notification. (¶¶ 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Promissory estoppel could not be invoked. Following Pawan Alloys & Casting, it yields to overriding public interest, and in GR Ispat the High Court had accepted the State's plea that the rebate policy had become unviable because of a financial crunch; that finding too operated as res judicata. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- No appeal lies against an order rejecting a review application (Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC). On merits too, neither the claim that rights crystallised on applying for power nor the newly found letter dated 06.04.1999 justified review. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 2027-2028, 2031-2032, 2033-2034 and 2035-2036 of 2012 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 4556 of 2012 dismissed as not pressed; no order as to costs.