IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS (Application for Judicial Review) In the matter of The (Mauritius) CT Power Ltd Applicant vis 1. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, represented by the Financial Secretary, of New Government House, Port Louis 2. The Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities, represented by the Senior Executive Officer, of Level 10, Air Mauritius Centre, John Kennedy Street, Port Louis Respondents In the presence of: 4. The Honourable Minister of Energy and Public Utilities, of Level 10 Air Mauritius Centre, John Kennedy Street, Port Louis 2. The Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Development, of New Government House, Port Louis 3. The Ministry of Environment, Sustainable Development, Disaster and Beach Management, represented by its Permanent Secretary, of Ken Lee Tower, Cnr Barracks & St Georges Streets, Port-Louis 4, The State represented by the Attorney General of Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Port Louis 5. The Central Electricity Board represented by its General Manager, of Royal Road, Curepipe, Mauritius Co-Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF CT POWER |, Babita Jowaheer, a company director of Allee Jacques, St Paul, Phoenix, holder of National Identity Card bearing number C2411693800479 MAKE SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY THAT: 1. lam one of the directors of the Applicant (hereinafter "CT Power’) and I have been duly authorised by the latter to solemnly affirm this affidavit on its behalf in connection with the present proceedings,10. "1 12 13. 14. 15. The First Respondent, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development is concerned with condition 15 of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) licence issued to CT Power. The Second Respondent, the Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities, is the party which had to sign an implementation agreement with CT Power to guarantee the payment obligations of Co-Respondent No. 5 (the ‘CEB’) Co-Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are interested parties who have been joined in the present application In or about late 2005 and early 2006, in line with the Government's policy for the democratisation of the economy and following an investment mission to Malaysia, Dato Subramaniam submitted a proposal to the Board of Investment (BO!) to set up a power plant in Mauritius to meet the country's demand for electricity. The BOI, which is under the aegis of the Minister of Finance, is empowered under the Investment Promotion Act to act as Government's representative in coordinating, facilitating and implementing public / private partnership projects. In or about April 2006, Dato Subramaniam wrote to the Director of Investment Promotion at the BOI and attached a proposal for a 3xS0MW power plant project ‘on a Build, Own and Operate Basis as an Independent Power Producer (IPP). Subsequently, the proposal was revised to a 2xS5MW power plant at the request of the CEB. CT Power was incorporated on 15 March 2006 as a special purpose vehicle to undertake and implement the power plant project. The certificate of incorporation of CT Power is annexed as Annex 1. Under section 3 of the Central Electricity Board Act, the CEB is responsible for the control and development of the electricity supplies generally in Mauritius. In or about April 2006, the BOI issued a letter of intent to enable CT Power to commence negotiations with the CEB for a power purchase agreement (Annex 2). CT Power started discussions with the CEB in or around May 2006. ‘On 29 June 2006, the Ministry of Housing and Lands approved the grant of an industrial lease to the CEB for the development of a coal power station in partnership with CT Power on a site located at Pointe-aux-Caves, Albion (Annex 3). Subsequently, a sub-lease agreement was drafted between the CEB and CT Power for CT Power to implement the power plant project. In September 2006, the BO! confirmed that the project is registered with the BO! under the conditions issued under the letter of intent (Annex 4). In October 2006, the CEB confirmed in writing to CT Power that the Second Respondent (the ‘Ministry of Energy’) had approved the project (Annex 5) From 2007 onwards, various public consultative meetings were held, environmental studies were undertaken and environmental impact assessment16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2 reports were commissioned, prepared and submitted to the Third Co-Respondent (the ‘Ministry of Environment’) by CT Power. In September 2008, the Ministry of Environment commissioned Mott MacDonald, through the UNDP, to undertake a review of the EIA Report submitted by CT Power. Mott MacDonald concluded in its report that the project should be granted an EIA Licence subject to conditions to address the identified impacts. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Mott MacDonald Report is attached (Annex 6) In December 2008, the following contracts were duly signed between CT Power and the CEB: 17.1. The Power Purchase Agreement, 17.2. The Coal Supply Agreement; and 17.3. The Interconnection Facilities Design and Build Agreement. A Subscription and Shareholders Agreement was also signed between CT Power, CT Power Holdings Ltd and the Central Electricity Board Investment Company Ltd. As per the provisions of the Subscription and Shareholder Agreement, the equity structure of The (Mauritius) CT Power Ltd will be enlarged at Financial Close (as it is defined in the Power Purchase Agreement and which cannot occur before the signature of the Implementation Agreement) and shall be held as follows:- 18.1. 58% of the equity to be held by CT Power Holdings Ltd; and 18.2 26% of the equity to be held by the Central Electricity Board Investment Company Ltd; and 18.3 16% of the equity to be held by a third party shareholder satisfying the criteria stipulated in the Subscription and Shareholders Agreement. At Present, the promoters are in negotiation with Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd, a renowned Engineering, Procurement and Construction contractor from India, to invest in the 16% equity stake. In July 2009, the Ministry of Environment requested additional studies to be ‘conducted and CT Power commissioned a supplementary EIA Report. As from July 2009 up to August 2010, following further various consultations with the Ministry of Environment, the public and other relevant authorities, CT Power submitted supplementary EIA reports including studies in Health Impact and marine biology. All these studies were done at substantial costs to CT Power. On 18 January 2011, the Director of Environment wrote to CT Power and stated that the latter’s application for an EIA licence had been rejected on the following grounds: 21.1. The site is not conducive for such a development; 21.2 The adverse impacts on the residential areas due to the inconveniences and disturbances associated with the traffic;22, 23, 24. 28. 26. 27. 28. 21.3 The likely health impacts on the inhabitants of the locality and surrounding areas. A copy of the letter of refusal dated 18 January 2011 is attached (Annex 7). CT Power, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister of Environment, appealed to the then Environment Appeal Tribunal and called expatriate expert witnesses of high-calibre from the United Kingdom to establish that there was no justification for rejecting its application. Again, CT Power incurred substantial costs in the appeal process and had to call witnesses from the UK on more than one occasion to depone before the Tribunal. After hearing evidence, on 16 July 2012 the Environment Appeal Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Minister of Environment had been wrong in rejecting the EIA licence application. The Tribunal found that the benefits of the project to the economy, the provision of relatively low cost of electricity generation, the security in the supply of electricity in Mauritius clearly outweighed possible inconveniences which could be caused by the project. The Tribunal, therefore, reversed the decision of the Minister of Environment and granted an EIA licence to CT Power. subject to eleven conditions. A copy of the Tribunal's judgment is attached (Annex 8) The Ministry of Environment did not appeal the determination of the then Environmental Appeal Tribunal (Annex 9). As a result, CT Power has a valid judgment from a quasi-judicial body giving it a proprietary right to proceed with the power plant project subject to conditions. CT Power is advised that a licence and the goodwill associated with it constitute a right to property which is guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Mauritius. Following the judgment of the Tribunal, the Department of Environment, acting in accordance with the said judgment, on 23 January 2013, issued 20 additional conditions (Annex 10) which included, in so far as it is relevant for the present purposes, condition 15 reading as follows: “The proponent shall undertake to provide proof of its financial capabilities for the duration of the project to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.” CT Power states that condition 15 of the EIA licence does not refer to “source of funds”. Further to obtaining its EIA licence, as there was no obstacle in its way, CT Power embarked on its project implementation plan and additional substantial costs have been incurred. For the construction of the power plant, CT Power has already entered into an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract with Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd. The latter is also interested in the project as a potential third party shareholder.29. 30, 31. 32. 33, 34. 35, In furtherance of complying with condition 15 of its EIA licence, CT Power has secured, since the 10 October 2014, a letter from two major international banks, namely Bank of America and Bank of India for the debt finance of the project up to the amount of USD 280 million (Annex 11) The wording of the letter of 10 October 2014 provides that the banks request sight of, inter alia, a copy of the Implementation Agreement to be executed by the Ministry of Energy to be able to assess the transaction and move forward with the financing. No issue was raised by the Ministry of Finance regarding the contents of the said letter which it was received by the Ministry of Finance, Without the Implementation Agreement being executed, no bank would be willing to commit to financing the project because the implementation agreement requires the Ministry of Energy to guarantee the CEB to meet its payment obligations. After the general elections in Mauritius in December 2014 and the coming into Power of a new Government, the new Minister of Energy and Public Utilities (the ‘Minister of Energy’) publicly stated that with regard to the CT Power Project he understands all contracts had been signed between the promoters and CEB and he would have to discuss with, and be guided by, the Attorney General as legal adviser to the State as to the project's future (Annex 12) On 15 January 2015, the representatives of CT Power had a meeting with the Minister of Energy and his officers. Several issues including the urgency of the Implementation Agreement were discussed. At no time did the Minister of Energy raise any issue about the award of the contract to CT Power or any matter regarding the implementation agreement. ‘On the same day, following the meeting with the Minister of Energy, the representatives of CT Power had a meeting with the Minister of Finance and Economic Development (the ‘Minister of Finance’). At the said meeting, the Minister of Finance informed CT Power that he would arrange for meetings with his officers, chaired by the Financial Secretary. He also requested that CT Power produces a comfort letter from any registered bank. Meetings were effectively held on 15 and 16 January 2015 between the representatives of CT Power and those of the Ministry of Finance who included the Financial Secretary, other officers of the Ministry of Finance and a representative of the Attorney General's office. During those meetings, a draft of a comfort letter was proposed by the Financial Secretary and same was discussed. The Financial Secretary was assisted by counsel from the Attorney-General's office. After several amendments, a final draft was agreed subject to the caveat that the issuer of the comfort letter could vary, amend or modify the terms discussed in order to comply with applicable regulations and legal advice. A copy of an initial draft of the comfort letter is attached as Annex 13. A draft of the latest text of the comfort letter is also annexed as Annex 1436. 37, 38, 39. 40. 41 On 27 February 2018, CT Power obtained a comfort letter dated 27 February 2015 from Avendus Capital (UK) Private Limited (hereinafter “Avendus’) for its equity finance up to an amount of USD 41 million (Annex 15). Avendus is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avendus Capital Pvt Ltd (India), an Investment Bank, and is regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority The copy of the comfort letter was despatched to the Minister of Finance on the same day. A copy of CT Power's despatch book is annexed as Annex 16 The wording of the comfort letter dated 27 February 2015 complied in form and substance with the draft which was provided by, discussed and agreed at meetings on 15 and 16 January 2015 with the representatives of the Ministry of Finance. The only sentence which is not included in its exact form is “Funds in respect of items (b) and (0) above shalll not originate from activities contravening Anti-Money Laundering Legislation or from any other illicit activities’. Avendus, however, stated in the comfort letter that. “We are authorised and regulated by, and are subject to the applicable rules of conduct of business (including the applicable anti-money laundering rules) of the Financial Conduct Authority of the UK." It stands to reason that no bank would give a commitment about future sources of funding unless it would actually provide the funding itself after having signed a binding agreement with the promoters of CT Power to provide the funding. Such agreement would not be signed until and unless the Implementation Agreement is signed. It also stands to reason that it is only in “year 2" and “year 3", i.e. before effecting the transfer of funds, that CT Power will have to disclose its source of funding. It is at the time that the transfer is made (i.e. the point at which a monetary transaction is effected) that CT Power would be required to disclose its source of funds. Under anti-money laundering legislation, regulatory authorities require source of funds to be ascertained only at the time of transfer. Only then would bankers be required and able to certify the source of funds. On 3 March 2015, following a private notice question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Energy stated in the National Assembly in reference to condition 15 of the EIA licence, that “As at today, the promoter has not met this condition. On 06 February 2015, Govemment has decided that the company should state its source of funding, within a reasonable delay, failing Which the project would not be implemented. Up to now, no letter of comfort has been communicated. Insofar as my Ministry is concemed, it intends to recommend to Cabinet that Government does not go ahead with the project.” CT Power states that it is unaware of any decision taken on 6 February 2015 by the Government to the effect that CT Power should state its source of funding. No meeting was held on or about 6 February 2015 with the representatives of CTPower. On the contrary, on 27 February 2015, the Minister of Finance did receive the comfort letter from Avendus. 42. On 5 March 2016, the Minister of Energy stated in the National Assembly that: “In answer to the Private Notice Question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday 03 March 2015, | stated that my Ministry had not received the letter of comfort which CT Power had been asked to provide. Yesterday, 04 March at 14.36 hours, an email was received from one Dato Subramaniam reading as follows — “Dear, Sir, | refer to media reports on your response to the Public Notice Question on CT Power Project at Parliament yesterday. | believe that you had somehow not been informed that we had sent a copy of the ‘Letter of Comfort” to the Ministry of Finance on 27 February 2015 and hence your response. We wish to correct the position and are pleased to advise you accordingly in letter as attached. | thank you for your kind support. Regards Dato M. Subramaniam” That email included a letter from Dato Subramaniam informing me that CT Power had, on 27 February last, delivered to the Ministry of Finance, a letter of comfort alleged to be in compliance with Condition 15 of the EIA licence delivered to CT Power. | am going to table a copy of that letter, Altached to that email was a document alleged to amount to a "letter of comfort” emanating from a company called “Avendus Capital (UK) Private Limited, | have consulted my colleague, the Minister of Finance who agrees that this letter is not a letter of comfort as required by Government.” 43. CT Power in fact did provide the said letter of comfort on 27 February 2015 as per extract of the despatch book at Annex 17. The Minister of Energy having misconstrued the sequence of events, as is apparent from his statement as reproduced at paragraph 42 above, he reached erroneous conclusions. In particular, he failed to appreciate or take into account the following facts: 43.1 CT Power licence conditions never required that it should state its source of funding within any specific delay failing which the project would not be implemented.44, 45, 46, 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 437 The Government of Mauritius itself has failed to execute the implementation agreement despite a letter dated 5 December 2014 served upon the then Minister of Renewable Energy and Public Utilities and copied to the CEB and the Ministry of Finance. At no time does the Minister of Energy refer to the letter of 10 October 2014 from the Bank of America and the Bank of India. The Minister of Energy plainly erred when he stated in the National ‘Assembly on 3 March 2015 that no letter of comfort had been communicated and that he intends to recommend to cabinet that Government does not go ahead with the project in the alleged absence of such letter of comfort It was not for the Minister of Energy but for the Minister of Finance to decide about the comfort letter; the former simply usurped the role of the latter and failed to seek the views of the Attorney General in the matter as he had previously indicated. In the circumstances there was no due process followed in respect of the project, which was well under way, and the Minister of Energy wrongly interfered with a judicial decision given by the Tribunal and not appealed against. CT Power was, in any event, never informed why the comfort letter provided by it was not ‘as required by Government’. On Friday 13" March 2015, the website of the Prime Minister's Office published the following Cabinet decision taken, widely reproduced in the media: “Cabinet has decided not to proceed with the power plant project of the Mauritius CT Power Ltd at Pointe aux Caves taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the award of contract and the failure of the promoters of the project to submit evidence of their financial capacity or the sources of funding. Government would consider other feasible options, with necessary transparence and clarity, to meet electricity demands for the period 2015-2019 and ensure energy security for Mauritius.” (underlining supplied in the text) Subsequently, on 1 April 2015, the Minister of Energy stated in the National Assembly’ “CT Power is one thing. We took the decision that we took on the basis of the financial capabilities of CT Power.” Further, on 2 April 2015, the Minister of Energy further stated in the National Assembly: “The only thing that has happened on CT Power is that Government has refused to sign an implementation agreement which would, in effect, guarantee the obligations of CEB. Why? Because CT Power could not establish its financial capabilities to our satisfaction! | have discussed this47. 48. 49, 50. 51 52, 53. 54, 55, with the hon. Minister of Finance and Economic Development, we were of the same view and we have said, we are not going to sign the implementation agreement.” It is unreasonable and irrational for the Respondents and the Co-Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, now, after more than 9 years, to take issue with the alleged “circumstances surrounding the award of the contract’, without considering the substantial investments made by CT Power and without considering the impact of such a statement on the reputation of CT Power internationally as well as the reputation of its partners and financiers. CT Power has the legitimate expectation, relying on the previous representations made to it by the authorities, its EIA Licence and the contracts signed with the CEB that, after having complied with the law as regard its project in a State where the Rule of Law is said to prevail, it would be allowed to implement the project to its fruitful conclusion In fact, in a recent press interview in the course of which he was asked "Avez-vous trouvé des traces de pourriture au ministére de Energie ? (Annex 17), the Minister of Energy and Public Utilities replied that «Eh bien, non. Rashid Beebeejaun, mon prédécesseur, n'est pas un pourri. Sur CT Power, par exemple, nous avions des ‘suspicions’ mais on n’a rien trouvé.” The reference to ‘suspicions’ by the Minister of Energy further illustrates the irrationality of the decision taken to thwart the project and the rigmarole of the process followed to stop the project. CT Power is of the view that it has satisfied condition 15 of its EIA licence and complied in material form and substance with the draft text of the comfort letter provided by the representatives of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development at the meeting held Until today, CT Power has not received any comments in writing from the Ministry of Finance or any official correspondence regarding condition 15 of its EIA licence. The decision conveyed by the Minister of Energy through his statements in the National Assembly is ultra vires and was made for the improper purpose of thwarting the project on the alleged pretext that CT Power was unable to provide the assurance of funds for its project. Further, irrelevant considerations were taken into account regarding the decision taken by the Government, namely the source of CT Power funds and the purported circumstances surrounding the award of the contract. The Ministry of Finance failed to take into consideration that CT Power has satisfied condition 15 of the EIA licence in securing the letter from the Bank of ‘America and the Bank of India dated 10 October 2014 and the comfort letter from Avendus dated 27 February 2015 and erred in allowing the Minister of Energy to lead in the show to side track the project.56. 87. 58. 59. 60. 61 62, 63, 64, After the signature of the Power Purchase Agreement, CT Power started the process of negotiating the terms of an Implementation Agreement, as required in the Power Purchase Agreement. The Ministry of Energy, as the parent Ministry of the CEB, which itself signed the Power Purchase Agreement in pursuance of its statutory functions and duties, was required to provide guarantees in favour of CT Power regarding the CEB's payment obligations under the Power Purchase ‘Agreement. The Implementation Agreement is not an instrument meant to guarantee repayment of loans by CT Power to financiers. It creates no financial risks for the Government of Mauritius during the development and construction period, which risks rest solely on CT Power. Under the Implementation Agreement, the Government of Mauritius (as represented by the Ministry of Energy) only needs to guarantee CEB's payment obligations under the Power Purchase Agreement. As far back as January 2009, the main terms of the Implementation Agreement have been settled with the representatives of the Ministry of Energy (Annex 18) After several consultations and amendments, a final agreed draft was circulated on 21 July 2014 (Annex 19) Despite several reminders and service of a letter dated 5 December 2014 under the hand of senior attorney R. Bucktowonsing (Annex 20), the Ministry of Energy has refused to sign the Implementation Agreement, The signing of the Implementation Agreement, the draft of which had been circulated in agreed form ever since 21 July 2014, is a critical security document which lenders have to see in its final form before issuing an expression of interest to meet the funding requirements of the project and/or the final sanction of the funding facilities, be it debt or equity. The Implementation Agreement is part of the whole mechanism set up by the CEB and CT Power with the blessing of the Government for the CEB to carry out its statutory functions (sections 3 and 10 of the Central Electricity Board Act), which includes providing for new generating stations. Furthermore, since it is a term under the Power Purchase Agreement that Termination & Transfer Amounts which may be due by the CEB which include a full or partial refund of debt (principal and interest) as well as equity injections (as. the case may be) are secured by the Implementation Agreement, CT Power's funders need to see the final executed text of the Implementation Agreement in ‘order to complete their financial assessment of the project. Since sending the letter of 5 December 2014, CT Power has not received any communication regarding the execution of the Implementation Agreement. Instead, on 2 April 2015, the Minister of Energy erroneously stated in the National Assembly that the Implementation Agreement would not be signed because CT Power allegedly could not establish its financial capabilities to the satisfaction of the Minister of Energy (vide paragraph 45 above)65, 66, 67. 68. 69. On 1 April 2015, the Minister of Energy, as the responsible person for the Ministry of Energy, stated in the National Assembly that that coal fired electricity generating plants have not been abandoned and that he was considering alternatives (Annex 21). CT Power reiterates that the proof of financial capabilities was never a condition which was to be satisfied before the signature of the Implementation Agreement. Such an alleged condition has been wrongly imposed unilaterally, without any prior consultation with CT Power and flies in the face of clause 7.1 of the draft Implementation Agreement which provides that CT Power will have 9 months from. the signature of the Implementation Agreement to provide proof of its financial capability and clause 7.2 which provides that CT Power shall be deemed to have satisfied clause 7.1 and condition 15 of its EIA licence at Financial Close (as defined in the Implementation Agreement). CT Power, therefore, states that there was and is no impediment to the execution of the Implementation Agreement since its terms and conditions have already been settled on 21 July 2014 and that it, therefore, has a legitimate expectation that the Implementation Agreement would be signed. CT Power has caused to be served on 8 April 2015 two notices, viz: 68.1 A Notice mise-en-demeure served on the Minister of Energy, the Senior Chief Executive of the Ministry of Energy and the Attorney General regarding the Implementation Agreement (Annex 22). In the said notice, the Ministry of Energy was called upon, required and summoned to execute the Implementation Agreement on behalf of the Government of Mauritius within 8 days of service of the notice. 68.2 A Notice mise-en-demeure served on the Minister of Finance, the Financial Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General regarding condition 15 of CT Power's EIA licence (Annex 23). In the said notice, the Ministry of Finance was formally called upon to confirm within 8 days from service of the notice that CT Power has complied with condition 15 of its EIA licence. The Ministry of Finance was also formally called upon, in case it took the view that CT Power has not satisfied the said Condition 15, to state the reasons why the said Ministry was of such view. Neither notice has been replied to up to this date. The refusal of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy to reply to the notices served on them respectively and the position taken by the Minister of Energy leads CT Power to the conclusion that: 69.1 the Ministry of Finance is seemingly not satisfied on the basis of statements made by the Ministry of Energy that condition 15 of the EIA licence has been met, without any justification. 69.2 the Ministry of Energy is unfairly refusing to sign the Implementation Agreement on the totally irrelevant consideration that condition 15 of the EIA licence has allegedly not been satisfied.70, 71 72 73. 74, CT Power states that: 70.1 having engaged with it, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy were bound to but failed to pursue meaningful discussions with it in order to allow it to proceed with its project; this amounts to a clear abuse of power; 70.2 through the representations made to it by the CEB and the State, it has a legitimate expectation to implement the project to its fruitful conclusion. CT Power further states that: 74.1 In relation to condition 15 of its EIA licence, the Ministry of Finance has acted unreasonably, unfairly, irrationally and has acted on the basis of irrelevant considerations in refusing to: 71.1.1 further engage with CT Power, 71.1.2 consult CT Power before taking its decision despite having itself suggested the wording of the comfort letter, 71.1.3 allow CT Power to make representations before taking any decision; 71.1.4 reply to the notices of CT Power; 71.1.5 acknowledge that Condition 15 of the EIA licence has been satisfied having regard to the letters from Bank of America and the Bank of India for the debt finance of the project and from Avendus for the equity finance. 71.2 In relation to the refusal of the Ministry of Energy to sign the Implementation ‘Agreement on the vexatious ground that the proof of financial capabilities has not been satisfied in compliance with condition 15 of the EIA licence, the Ministry of Energy has acted ultra vires, unreasonably, unfairly, irrationally, in bad faith and has acted on the basis of irrelevant considerations with a view to thwart the legitimate expectation of CT Power to bring the project to its fruitful conclusion. By motion dated 25 May 2015, CT Power applied for leave. On 16 July 2015, CT Power was granted leave to proceed with its judicial review (Annex 24). CT Power is advised and verily believes that in the circumstances it is urgent, expedient and necessary that CT Power should be granted: 74.1 an order for a Judicial Review of the decisions of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy referred to above, including at paragraphs 69.1 and 69.2 respectively: 74.2 a declaration that condition 15 of the EIA licence has been satisfied;74,3. an order of mandamus directing and compelling the Ministry of Energy to sign the Implementation Agreement; and 74.4 such other order as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances. 75. CT Power prays accordingly Solemnly affirmed by the abovenamed deponent ) at Chambers, Supreme Court House ) Port Louis this 23° day of July 2015 ) PAZANY THANDARAYAN Before me ATTORNEY AT LAW This is to certify that the present affidavit will form part of an application before the above Court. PAZANY THANDARAYAN ATTORNEY AT LAW