Delhi High Court
M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 24 January, 2014
Author: Manmohan
#34, 37, 42
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
34.
+ W.P.(C) 529/2014
M/S BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Aashish
Gupta, Mr. Dushyant Manocha and
Mr. Aditya Mukherjee, Mr. Aditya
Shankar and Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi,
Advocates
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan with Ms. Pyoli
and Mr. Govind Jee, Advocates for
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Biji
Rajesh and Ms. Snigdha Sharma,
Advocates for CAG.
AND
37.
+ W.P.(C) 539/2014
M/S BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMTIED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ajit Warier, Mr. Aashish
Gupta, Mr. Dushyat Manocha and
Mr. Aditya Mukherjee, Advocates
versus
W.Ps.(C) 529, 539 & 559 of 2014 Page 1 of 6
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan with Ms. Pyoli
and Mr. Govind Jee, Advocates for
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Biji
Rajesh and Ms. Snigdha Sharma,
Advocates for CAG.
WITH
42.
+ W.P.(C) 559/2014
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. A.S.
Chandiok, Senior Advocates with
Mr. Amit Kapur, Mr. Anupam
Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma,
Mr. Rahul Kinra, Mr. Ritesh Kumar,
Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates
versus
THE COMPTROLLER AND
AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan with Ms. Pyoli
and Mr. Govind Jee, Advocates for
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Biji
Rajesh and Ms. Snigdha Sharma,
Advocates for CAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
W.Ps.(C) 529, 539 & 559 of 2014 Page 2 of 6
ORDER
% 24.01.2014
CM APPL 1066/2014 in W.P.(C) 529/2014
CM APPL 1079/2014 in W.P.(C) 539/2014
CM APPL 1127/2014 in W.P.(C) 559/2014
(Exemption from filing lengthy synopsis.)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM APPL 1126/2014 in W.P.(C) 559/2014
(Exemption from filing certified copies and dim annexures)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 529/2014 & CM APPL. 1065/2014
W.P.(C) 539/2014 & CM APPL. 1078/2014
W.P.(C) 559/2014 & CM APPL. 1125/2014
At the outset, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing
for petitioner-TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. has handed over an
additional affidavit dated 24th January, 2014 placing on record a letter dated
22nd January, 2014 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for respondent-
Government of NCT of Delhi has no objection to the said affidavit being
taken on record. Accordingly, aforesaid additional affidavit is taken on
record.
It is pertinent to mention that present writ petitions have been filed
challenging the order dated 7th January, 2014 passed by the respondent-
Government of NCT of Delhi and orders dated 17th January, 2014 passed by
the respondent-Government of NCT of Delhi and respondent- Comptroller
and Auditor General (for short 'CAG') directing audit of accounts of
petitioner-DISCOMs since their inception by the CAG.
Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for petitioner-TATA
Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. submits that the impugned orders are ultra
vires the Constitution of India as well as The Comptroller and Auditor-
General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (for short
'Act, 1971') and The Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'Act, 2003'). He
submits that the impugned actions have been taken to achieve a
predetermined objective of reduction in tariff. According to him, the
exercise of tariff is now exclusively controlled by the Act, 2003.
Mr. Salve also submits that the petitioner-Discoms are neither a body
nor an authority whose accounts can be audited under Section 20 of Act,
1971. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he submits that only the Hon'ble
Lt. Governor of Delhi could have recommended audit of any body or
authority under Section 20 of the Act, 1971.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner-
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. submits that the impugned orders are in
violation of principles of natural justice and have been passed with a
predetermined mind. He contends that the impugned orders are vitiated by
malice in law and the hearing that was afforded to the petitioners was an
empty formality.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent-Government of
NCT of Delhi submits that the impugned orders are in accord with Sections
14, 16 and 20 of the Act, 1971.
Mr. Bhushan submits that with regard to the issue of audit, Hon'ble
Lt. Governor of Delhi has to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers of Delhi in accordance with the Supreme Court
judgment in M/s. Shamsher Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974
SC 2192. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Bhushan
contends that in the present case, Hon'ble Lt. Governor has approved the
decision of the Council of Ministers of Delhi.
Mr. Bhushan also submits that principles of natural justice have been
duly complied with in the present case.
Mr. Bhushan states that a petition seeking audit by the CAG even in
the absence of impugned orders is already pending before a Division Bench
of this Court in W.P.(C) 895/2011. In this context, he refers to the Grounds
BB (Page 54) of W.P.(C) 529/2014 and 539/2014.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for CAG states
that CAG has the power and jurisdiction to conduct the audit of petitioner-
companies.
In rejoinder, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned
senior counsel for petitioners in W.P.(C) 529/2014 and 539/2014
respectively state that they are not pressing Ground BB of their petitions.
The said statements are accepted by this Court and petitioners in W.P.(C)
529/2014 and 539/2014 are held bound by the same.
Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that
the matters call for detailed counter-affidavits as well as a detailed hearing.
Consequently, issue notice.
Learned counsel for opposite parties accept notice. They pray for and
are granted four weeks to file counter-affidavits. Rejoinder, if any, be filed
within three weeks thereafter.
List on 19th March, 2014.
However, at this stage, though the prayer for stay of the impugned
orders is declined, it is directed that the CAG shall not submit its final report
till the next date of hearing.
Order dasti under signature of Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 24, 2014
rn
