TUPAKULA NIKHIL

CASES- INFRASTRUCTURE LAW

ELECTRICITY SECTOR

1. U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS BANARAS ELECTRIC LIGHT &

POWER

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “no provision is made in the Indian
Electricity Act requiring the licensee to deliver the book debts of the company to the Board
on vesting of the Undertaking in the latter”
FACTS OF THE CASE
Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the Company) was the
holder of the license dated 6th February, 1925 for generation, supply and distribution of
electric energy in the city of Banaras under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the
Act). On 1st February, 1974 a notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was served upon the
company notifying the intention of the Board to purchase the undertaking of the company.
The possession of the Undertaking was taken over at midnight between 5th and 6th February,
1975. The undertaking of the company thereupon vested in the Board. On the date of the take
over of the Undertaking there were certain uncollected dues for the electricity supplied by the
company to its consumers up to the date of vesting which were thereafter collected by the
Board. Up to 30th April, 1979 a total sum of Rs.68,29,636.87 had been collected.
The further case pleaded by the Board was that under the provisions of the Act it was entitled
to adjust the said amount towards dues of the company towards the cost of the electricity
supplied and the security deposits of the consumers which the company had failed to make
over to the Board at the time of vesting.
ISSUE
- whether the Board is liable to pay to the liquidators of the company (in
liquidation)respondent herein the sum of Rs.68,29,636.87 together with interest being
the amount collected by the Board between the 4th/5th February, 1975 till 30th April,
1979 towards arrears of electricity charges for the electricity supplied to consumers
during periods prior to the take over of the Undertaking by the Board, and all
collections made by the Board subsequently on that account.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- The company contended that the amount was collected by the Board as agent of the
company and the Board held the amount as a trustee.
- Therefore, the Board was required in fact and in law to make over the amount
collected by it and any further sum which it may collect from the consumers towards
such arrear dues of the company to the liquidators. Contesting the claim of the
company the Board took the stand that it was entitled to retain and appropriate any
amount collected by it after vesting of the undertaking since the book-debts of the
company which were part of the undertaking vested in the Board.
- The further case pleaded by the Board was that under the provisions of the Act it was
entitled to adjust the said amount towards dues of the company towards the cost of the
electricity supplied and the security deposits of the consumers which the company had
failed to make over to the Board at the time of vesting.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- If the appellants argument is to be accepted, the statute must be taken to have given
the licensee the credit for money which do not belong to the licensee; this
construction will lead to absurdity and should be avoided.
- the unpaid bills of the consumers are not covered by the expression undertaking and
under the Act the outstanding amounts payable on the bills belong to the licensee.

REASONING
- Section 6 of the Act which deals with purchase of undertakings enumerates the
procedure to be followed when the State Electricity Board or the State
Government or any local authority constituted for an area intends to purchase
an Undertaking.
- SECTION 7 Vesting of the undertaking in the purchaser:- Where an undertaking is
sold under section 5 or section 6, then upon the completion of the sale or on the date
on which the undertaking is delivered to the intending purchaser under the sub-section
(3) of section 5 or under sub-section (6) of section 6, as the case may be,
- On a close reading of the provisions noted above it is clear that no provision is made
in the Act requiring the licensee to deliver the book debts of the company to the Board
on vesting of the Undertaking in the latter, nor is there any provision in the statute
empowering the Board to deduct the amount of unrealised dues of the company from
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

its consumers towards the electricity supplied to them prior to the date of vesting from
the purchase money to be paid by the Board to the company.
- Further, there is no provision in the Act which enables the Board to adjust the said
amount towards security deposits or any other dues. The plea of adjustment/set off is
untenable. The field being covered by statute the exercise has to be done strictly in
accordance with the statutory provisions.
- It is not open for the Board to make any deduction by way of adjustment or set off
from the amount to be paid to the company without a statutory mandate in that regard.
It follows therefore that the company is entitled to receive from the Board the
amounts realised by the latter from consumers towards charges of the electricity
supplied by the company to them prior to the date of vesting. The Division Bench has
also referred to the correspondence between the Board and Company indicating that
the Board was conscious of its liability to hand over a sum of Rs.68,29,636.87 to the
company.
JUDGMENT
- APPEAL DISMISSED

2. ENERGY WATCHDOG V. CERC

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

The court held that “ “change in law” did not include foreign law, it laid down a broad scope
for Indian law for the purpose of the PPAs by holding that any change in government policy.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
On January 11th, 2007, Gujarat UrjaVikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) selected Adani
Enterprises Consortium as a successful bidder, entered into Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with a German Company and a Japanese agent. Every single act was in accordance
to the guidelines issued by the Central Government And then, Adani Consortium signed
several Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for different projects.
IN 2010 AND 2011,
PPA process met some uncontemplated hurdles the Indonesian government increased the
export price of coal to international market levels, thereby almost doubling the cost borne by
private power suppliers such as Adani Power Limited and Tata Power Company Limited
Since the price of coal had risen, power suppliers sought to get the tariff adjusted or
discharged from performance of the PPA on grounds of frustration of contract.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

Despite the talk and efforts around solar, hydro and wind energy, India is largely dependent
on coal for power. when coal became scarce in India, several of the PPAs to build prestigious
energy projects began to witness serious litigation in the central and state electricity
commissions as well as the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
PRAYER
Adani Power filed a petition before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)
seeking relief either in discharging them from the performance of the PPAs on account of
frustration, or evolving a mechanism restoring the petitioners to the same economic condition
prior to the occurrence of the change in Indonesian laws
ISSUE
a. Whether the “change in law” includes change in foreign law?
b. Whether mere change in price amount to frustration of contract?
ARGUMENTS
The private power suppliers pleaded force majeure both in the PPA and as a general principle
of contract law as a ground for seeking relief by claiming that the rise in coal prices due to
change in the Indonesian law had made the contract commercially impracticable and
frustrated its basis or at least entitled them to compensatory tariff so that the heavy losses
being suffered by them could be made good.
REASONING
- the general regulatory power of the Commission under Section 79(1)(b) is the source
of the power to regulate, which includes the power to determine or adopt tariff. In
fact, Sections 62 and 63 deal with “determination” of tariff, which is part of
“regulating” tariff. Whereas “determining” tariff for inter-State transmission of
electricity is dealt with by Section 79(1)(d), Section 79(1)(b) is a wider source of
power to “regulate” tariff. It is clear that in a situation where the guidelines issued by
the Central Government under Section 63 cover the situation, the Central Commission
is bound by those guidelines and must exercise its regulatory functions, albeit under
Section 79(1)(b), only in accordance with those guidelines. As has been stated above,
it is only in a situation where there are no guidelines framed at all or where the
guidelines do not deal with a given situation that the Commission’s general regulatory
powers under Section 79(1)(b) can then be used.
- SECTION 63 IN THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 which provides that Central or State
Electricity Commissions shall adopt the tariff decided by a transparent bidding
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

process conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central

Government.
- the power suppliers could no longer plead force majeure as a means to avoid the
performance of the contract but could argue it “in all its plentitude” to support an
order that would quantify compensatory tariff.
- The court noted that since the PPA nowhere stated that the coal needed to be imported
from Indonesia, the rise in coal price was a risk the power suppliers knowingly took
and thus the responsibility to pay and arrange for supply of coal was entirely upon the
person who set up the power plant.
- the situation was neither covered by Clause 12.3 nor so covered by Clause 12.7 of the
PPA which relate to force majeure events (natural or non-natural),
- SECTION 32 OF THE CONTRACT ACT could not be applied either. (providing for
contracts contingent on the happening or non-happening of an event i.e. contingent
contracts.) the court ruled that a plain reading of Clause 12.4 of the PPA indicated that
changes in fuel cost would not count as force majeure. Having once held that clause
12.4 applies as a result of which rise in the price of fuel cannot be regarded as a force
majeure event contractually, it is DIFFICULT to appreciate a submission that in the
alternative SECTION 56 WILL APPLY.
- Change in law….. included only a change in the Indian laws. the change in
Indonesian law did not clear the test either and the case appeared to be a clear victory
for the DISCOMs and the consumer groups Supreme Court held that “change in law”
did not include foreign law, it laid down a broad scope for Indian law for the purpose
of the PPAs by holding that any change in government policy.
JUDGMENT
- All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

3. ACME CHITTORGARH SOLAR ENERGY PVT LTD V. MAHARASHTRA

STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In this case, it is for the first time when a Commission has accepted the payments made
through Customs Bonds and allowed reimbursement of the amount claimed under the bonds,
including the Carrying Cost on the additional capital cost incurred due to the imposition of
Safeguard Duty
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

FACTS OF THE CASE

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) on June 15, 2020 passed its order
(Order) in Case No. 07 of 2020 titled as ACME Chittorgarh Solar Energy Pvt Ltd v.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, allowing the increase in the cost of
the Project due to imposition of Safeguard Duty by the Central Government. The Petitioner –
ACME – sought reimbursement of the cost incurred as a result of the imposition of Safeguard
Duty by the Central Government, which qualified as a Change in Law Event under the Power
Purchase Agreement executed between ACME and MSEDCL (PPA). ACME had sought
direction for MSEDCL to pay the claimed amount by way of incremental tariff to be
determined by MERC in terms of its tariff regulations.
ISSUES
- Whether all required documents for verification of Change in Law claim have been
submitted?
- Whether interest cost on Custom Bonds are to be included in computation of Change
in Law?
- What is the Capacity of Solar Modules eligible for compensation under Change in
Law?
- What should be rate of interest for Carrying Cost? What is the Methodology for
awarding compensation?
ORDER
MERC in its order has allowed ACME's claim for compensation on account of additional
cost incurred due to imposition of Safeguard Duty (including additional GST) under Change
in Law provisions of PPA and has directed ACME to provide undertaking that all modules
installed at project site for supplying power to MSEDCL have been imported from the
Country which is subjected to Safeguard Duty.
However, MERC rejected ACME's request for the reimbursement of interest accrued on the
Bonds submitted with the Customs department for the import of solar modules and observed
that the decision for the cost of financing the purchase needs to be borne by the developers.
Further, MERC has prescribed a methodology for calculation of compensation for the
Carrying Cost incurred on the claimed amount (as a consequence to imposition of Safeguard
Duty). As per the MERC Order, Carrying Cost is required to be calculated on the deferred
recovery part (average of opening and closing balance) of total compensation at the simple
interest rate of 1.25% in excess of one-year MCLR of the State bank of India, which is also
the prescribed rate for late payment surcharges under the PPA. MERC has also directed
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

MSEDCL to ascertain the compensation amount based on the submission made by ACME
and to complete the process within 15 days from the date of this Order.
JUDGMENT
- The decision of MERC in this case is significant because it is for the first time when a
Commission has accepted the payments made through Customs Bonds and allowed
reimbursement of the amount claimed under the bonds, including the Carrying Cost
on the additional capital cost incurred due to the imposition of Safeguard Duty.
- The Commission has also provided a separate methodology for calculation of the
compensation amount. This Order sets a precedent for Developers who seek to make
payments through executing Custom Bonds to cover the increase in financing cost and
liabilities.

4. PTC INDIA LTD. V CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY

COMMISSION, THR. SECY.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

The court held that “- The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the
validity of the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under
Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003”
FACTS OF THE CASE
appellants had challenged the vires of THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION (FIXATION OF TRADING MARGIN) REGULATIONS, 2006 as null and void
before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and had prayed for quashing of the said
Regulations. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals holding that its jurisdiction was
restricted by the limits imposed by the parent Statute, i.e., the Electricity Act, 2003
ISSUES
- Whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 (“2003
Act”) has jurisdiction under Section 111 to examine the validity of Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 framed in
exercise of power conferred under Section 178 of the 2003 Act?
- Whether Parliament has conferred power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal
for Electricity under Section 121 of the 2003 Act?
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- Whether capping of trading margins could be done by the CERC (“Central

Commission”) by making a Regulation in that regard under Section 178 of the 2003
Act?
JUDGMENT
- ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003- The 2003 Act is enacted as an exhaustive Code on all
matters concerning electricity. It provides for “unbundling” of SEBs into separate
utilities for generation, transmission and distribution.
- SECTION 3 OF THE 2003 ACT requires the Central Government, in consultation with
the State Governments and the Authority, to prepare National Electricity Policy as
well as Tariff Policy for development of the power system based on optimum
utilization of resources.
- SECTION 66 confers substantial powers on the Appropriate Commission to develop
the relevant market in accordance with the principles of competition, fair participation
as well as protection of consumers’ interests
- The decision-making and regulation-making functions are both assigned 53 to CERC.
Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by regulation and
litigation. Laws from all three sources are binding.
- SECTION 178: The Central Commission may by notification make regulations
consistent with this Act and the rules generally to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 49: Where the Appropriate Commission has allowed open access to certain
consumers, such consumers although may enter into an agreement with any person for
supply or purchase of electricity on such terms and conditions including tariff as may
be agreed upon by them.
- price fixation exercise is really legislative in character, unless by the terms of a
particular statute it is made quasi-judicial as in the case of Tariff fixation under
Section 62 made appealable under SECTION 111 OF THE 2003 ACT, though Section
61 is an enabling provision for the framing of regulations by CERC. If one takes
“Tariff” as a subjectmatter, one finds that under Part VII of the 2003 Act actual
determination/ fixation of tariff is done by the Appropriate Commission under
SECTION 62 whereas Section 61 is the enabling provision for framing of regulations
containing generic propositions in accordance with which the Appropriate
Commission has to fix the tariff.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- Applying the abovementioned tests to the scheme of 2003 Act, we find that under the
Act, the Central Commission is a decision-making as well as regulation-making
authority, simultaneously.
- SECTION 79 delineates the functions of the Central Commission broadly into two
categories – mandatory functions and advisory functions. Tariff regulation, licensing
(including inter-State trading licensing), adjudication upon disputes involving
generating companies or transmission licensees fall under the head “mandatory
functions” whereas advising Central Government on formulation of National
Electricity Policy and tariff policy would fall under the head “advisory functions”
- In this sense, the Central Commission is the decision-making authority. Such
decision-making under Section 79(1) is not dependent upon making of regulations
under Section 178 by the Central Commission. Therefore, functions of Central
Commission enumerated in Section 79 are separate and distinct from function of
Central Commission under Section 178. The former is administrative/adjudicatory
function whereas the latter is legislative.
- The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the
Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section
178 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 shall not be
construed as a general principle of law to be applied to Appellate Tribunals vis-à-vis
Regulatory Commissions under other enactments.
JUDGMENT
- The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the
Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section
178 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The validity of the Regulations may, however, be
challenged by seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

5. TATA POWER COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. VS. MAHARASHTRA

ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

FACTS OF THE CASE

 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

TPC has been generating and supplying electricity to distribution licensees like RInfra and
BEST respectively licenses were granted to TPC to generate and supply power. Accordingly
it began procuring bulk power from TPC generating stations.
Thereafter the Maharashtra State Electricity Board gave consent to the Saphale power project
of RInfra and approval however was not granted to the Bhivpur project of TPC. Against that
TPC filed a writ petition in High Court.
It was alleged in the said petition that the impugned decision of the MSEB was illegal and
contrary to the 1948 Act, which forbade it from granting sanction to any other person to
generate electricity if the existing bulk licensee was able and willing to supply power.
Thereafter the 2003 Act came into force under the new Act the `Generating Companies' have
been given freedom of choice to sell power to any licensee and the concept of `open access'
which allows the distribution licensee to source its power from any generating company. The
distributors accordingly under the changed law do not have to depend upon state based
generators to meet their needs.
ISSUE
- Whether equitable allocation of power generated by a generating company is
permissible?
JUDGMENT
- The Act clearly shows that the generating company indirectly comes within the
purview of regulatory jurisdiction as and when directions are issued to the distributing
companies by the appropriate Commission but the same would not mean that while
exercising the said jurisdiction, the Commission will bring within its umbrage the
generating company also for the purpose of issuance separate direction.
- The 2003 Act even permits the generating company to supply electricity to a
consumer directly. For the said purpose what is necessary is to comply with the
provisions of the Act , Rules and the Regulations.
- Section 10: A generating company may supply electricity to any licensee in
accordance with this Act and the rules and regulations made there under and may,
subject to the regulations made under sub-section (2) of section 42, supply electricity
to any consumer.
- Section 86: The State Commission shall discharge functions to regulate electricity
purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at
which electricity shall be procured from the generating licensees or from other
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within
the State.
- In the case of GUJARAT URJA VIKASH NIGAM LTD. V. ESSAR POWER, the dispute
arose between the licensee and the power generating company. It was held in that case
that since the Electricity Act is a special enactment, the provisions of special law will
override the general law. Hence the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration
Act is not maintainable in view of statutory provisions of the Electricity Act of 2003

RAILWAY SECTOR

1. JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ALOK

KOTAHWALA AND ORS.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
In this case, the court held that “In such cases of public importance of Metro Rail Project,
there should not be any interim stay, rather an effort should be made to decide the matter
finally at an early date. Staying the land acquisition proceedings is not appropriate and would
be against the larger public interest involved in such projects.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
The intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
as against the interlocutory order passed by the Single Bench on 11.09.2012 staying the
acquisition proceedings of the land in question and giving liberty to the State Government to
restart the proceedings for the purpose of land acquisition in accordance with law with
respect to land being acquired for the purpose of Jaipur Metro Rail Project.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Alok Kotahwala&Ors. before the Single
Bench praying for the relief of quashment of Notification issued under Sec. 4 on 26.5.2011
and the declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as
"the Act", published in Rajasthan Patrika on 6.7.2012. Prayer has also been made to quash
the notice dt. 11.7.2012 issued under Sec. 9 of the Act on the ground that acquisition of the
land for the Metro Car Depot as mentioned in the Notification u/S. 4 of the Act is illegal; it
amounts to colourable and malafide exercise of the power; there has been gross violation of
the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Act;
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

The Single Bench has granted interim stay of the land acquisition proceedings, though it has
been found that opportunity of hearing has been given, petitioners failed to keep themselves
present before the LAO. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether an intra court appeal lies against the interim order of the Single Bench?
- Whether due consideration to the objections was given to the respondents under
SECTION 5 A of the 1894 LAND ACQUISITION ACT?
- Whether, under Article 226, important infrastructure projects can be stayed easily?
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- e Jaipur City has seen the development and growth at escalating rate during past two
decades and the growth of the City has been continuously recorded in the past three
decades. In addition to the development, Jaipur has also been a major tourist attraction
for large number of domestic and international tourists. Due to the increase in the
development and commercial activities, all the resources in the Jaipur City have seen
a great constraint due to increased traffic, population, industries, business centers,
colleges, schools etc.
- Therefore, the decision has been taken to undertake the Metro Rail Project so as to
relieve the stress on the public transport system in the Jaipur City; the State
Government has also taken steps in this regard; the Govt. of India has also entered
into the Memorandum of understanding with the State Government.
- The order passed by the Single Bench that there was no due application of mind on
the objections filed under Sec. 5A of the Act, is ex facie and palpably incorrect; there
was due application of mind to the objections submitted and to the reply filed, not
only by the LAO but also by the State Government. It is also submitted that most of
the objections were related to the validity of the notification issued u/s. 4 of the Act
and that the metro project is not in the public interest; these aspects have been dealt
with by this court in number of cases and have been rejected; most of the objections
were not within the purview of Sec. 5-A of the Act
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- as per the High Court rules of Rajasthan, an intra court appeal lies only against the
judgment. In this case, it was an interim order but not a judgment. Hence, this intra
court appeal shall not be admitted.
- There was no due application of mind by the LAO; the objections u/s. 5A of the Act
have not been taken into consideration; the case was posted for hearing of the
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

objections and mandatory requirement of Sec. 5-A of the Act has not been complied
with.
REASONING
- Since the interim order had the finality regarding the issue, it can be considered as a
judgment. Hence, an intra court appeal lies against the said order.
- SEC. 5-A OF THE ACT by the LAO, we find that the mind has been duly applied by
the LAO. A reading of the report submitted by the LAO makes it clear that the same
has not been considered properly by the Single Bench. There were as many as 28
Objections in separate paragraphs; they have been summarized into 14, which could
not have been done without active and due application of mind by the LAO to the
Objections and, thereafter, meticulously the reply to the Objections has also been
summarized, they are not paraphrased, as suggested' by learned Sr. Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 Alok Kotahwala&ors. The
meticulous mention of the summarized Objections and the reply indicate that the LAO
was not only alive of the nature of Objections, which were raised, but also of the reply
and after mentioning the stand of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project as well as the
objections on the last page of the report, objection with respect to exclusive ownership
- it as been opined by the State Govt. that the proposed land to be acquired is essential
for the purpose for which it is being acquired, looking to the length of Metro line and
number bf Stations in phase-II vis-a-vis phase-I and provision taken in the DPR and
hence, the action of the land being acquired, appears reasonable and recommended to
accept the report of the LAO and, accordingly, to issue the declaration under Sec. 6 of
the Act and the said Note has been approved by the concerned Minister also. Para 66
of the Note dt. 4.7.2012 indicates that how the mind has been applied to the extent of
area required for the Depot and technical aspect
- When we come to the Objections which were raised; first objection with respect to
validity of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, it could not have been made the
ground of enquiry to be made under purview of Sec. 5-A; second objection was with
the use of word 'satisfaction' in notification u/S. 4 of the Act, which also pertained to
the validity of the notification, it could not have been the subject matter of the enquiry
under Sec. 5A of the Act; with respect to public interest, whether public purpose is
involved or not, there are several decisions of this court with respect to Jaipur Metro
Rail Project that this is in the public interest and for the public purpose the acquisition
is being made.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- With respect to ecological balance, there has to be sustainable development and such
projects of immense public importance cannot be halted. It is not the case that
requisite permissions from the Central Government and the State Government have
not been obtained, thus, objections were flimsy. In other petitions also pertaining to
the same Project, this court has held that such project of immense public importance
should not be put to halt. Thus, flimsy and untenable objections were raised, which
have been rightly rejected after due application of mind.
- In the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta, IT WAS HELD:
“Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations
relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an
ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy
competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment
to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to
attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as
"Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised
on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress
is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and
communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and
modernisation.”
JUDGMENT
On merits, we find the order of interim stay passed by the Single Bench to be untenable, thus,
we have no hesitation in setting aside the same.SUFFICE IT TO OBSERVE THAT IN SUCH CASES
OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF METRO RAIL PROJECT, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY INTERIM

STAY, RATHER AN EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO DECIDE THE MATTER FINALLY AT AN EARLY

DATE. STAYING THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND WOULD BE

AGAINST THE LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED IN SUCH PROJECTS. Thus, relying upon
the decision in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), we hold that in the matter of
immense public importance like the present one, the power to grant interim stay under Article
226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in the normal course. Resultantly, the appeal
filed by the JMRC is allowed. The impugned interim stay order dt. 11.9.2012 passed by the
Single Bench is set aside

2. CASE STUDY ON METRO RAIL

INTRODUCTION
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

This case study is broadly conceived to assess the potential of the Delhi-metro rail. When
evaluating mass transit options for Indian cities, metro systems are given preference over
surface systems due to the belief that a road-based bus system cannot cater to the capacity
requirement as much as metro systems. In addition to this, metro rails are perceived to have
higher levels of comfort, speed, and efficiency as compared to bus systems. Capital intensive
construction and high operation cost of metro systems necessitates financial support from
state and central governments, foreign loans, tax exemptions and other subsidies. However,
noexplicit analysis of these considerations is available and more elaborate studies would be
required to understand each of these dimensions. This study covers the following aspects of
the Delhi metro rail project:
1. Overview of project demand estimation and financing plans
2. Impact on safety and CO2 emissions
It is important to recognize that CO2 emissions would occur in both the construction and
operations phase of the project. The current study focuses on short-term assessment and
briefly mentions the CO2 impact based on life cycle methodology.
METRO RAIL
Metro rails are rail-based, mass rapid transit systems that operate on an exclusive right-of-
way, which is separated from all modes of transport in an urban area. Most often, the right-
of-way is either underground or elevated above street level. These systems generally operate
at an average speed of 20–35 km/h, and are characterized by their high capacity (50,000–
75,000 passengers per hour, per direction) and high frequency of operation. The capital cost
of construction is between 20–30 times that of the Bus Rapid Transit system, depending on
whether the metro systems are underground or elevated (Mohan, 2008). There has been a
growing interest among policymakers about the relevance of rail-based systems in India, to
address the mobility needs of the expanding population in the cities.
While evaluating different mass transit options for Indian cities, metro systems are often
given preference due to the belief that road-based bus systems cannot cater to capacity
requirements as much as metro systems. In addition to this, metr rails are perceived to have
higher levels of comfort, speed and efficiency, than bus systems, making them more
attractive to both policymakers and potential users of the system. Promoters of metro systems
often claim that one of the benefits of the metro is reduced congestion, due to the users’ shift
from road-based motorized modes to metro systems. This mode shift is then claimed to result
in reduced air pollution and road accidents50. However, the experience of metro rails in low
and middle income counties around the world shows otherwise (Mohan, 2008). Due to the
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

induced demand, the available road space fills up with motorized vehicles, and the modal
shift to metro does not result in the reduction of congestion or air pollution.
DELHI METRO RAIL
A study done by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on pollution levels in Delhi
illustrates that in 2001 (Delhi Metro started in 2002) the annual average level of respiratory
suspended particulate matter (RSPM, or PM10) in residential areas stood at 149 microgram
per cubic metre. After registering a drop in 2005, the level rose to 209 microgram per cubic
metre in 2008. The concentration is approximately three times higher than safe levels.
Similarly, the eight-hourly maximum current level of carbon monoxide (CO) is touching
6,000microgram per cubic metre – way above the safe level of 2,000 microgram per cubic
metre – though the annual levels have registered a drop. Overall, these figures illustrate that
the operation of the Delhi Metro has not led to a reduction in pollution levels in the city
(Randhawa, 2012). The first significant mention of a mass rapid transit system for Delhi
emerged from a 1969 traffic and travel characteristics study.
Under the Smart City Mission Delhi is the nodal city that not only makes the policy but also
implements it effectively. Smart Mobility is inseparable part of this mission and Delhi
became an interesting part of the study as it has invested extensively in the transit of one of
the highly populated cities in the early 20s. The study aims to explore the impact of Delhi
Metro as far as the smart mobility is concerned. Delhi is prefect for the study as it has been
closer to two decades after it has successfully introduced the metro
LAND ACQUISITION AND DELHI METRO- ISSUES IN PHASE III
The Delhi Metro Rail Project has been facing land acquisition issues due to the
implementation of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. This act allows the government to
acquire private land for public use, such as for the construction of highways, railways, or
other infrastructure projects, by providing fair compensation to the landowners. However,
there have been concerns raised by landowners regarding the compensation being offered to
them. Many of them feel that the compensation being offered is not sufficient to compensate
for the loss of their land, and they are not being given a fair value for their property.
To address these issues, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has been working to
improve its compensation policies and procedures. They have been conducting land surveys
to determine the fair market value of the land, and are working to provide better
compensation to landowners who are affected by the project. Additionally, the government
has recently enacted the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT OF 2013, which replaces the
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

Land Acquisition Act of 1894. This new act includes provisions for fair compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement of landowners affected by government land acquisitions.
Overall, while land acquisition issues in the Delhi Metro Rail Project have been a concern,
efforts are being made to improve the compensation process and ensure that landowners are
fairly compensated for the loss of their property.
2013 ACT- COMPENSATION
The 2013 Act mandates that for private projects the consent of 80% of land owners
must be obtained, whereas, for public-private partnership projects the consent of 70%
of land owners must be obtained. However, for government projects consent of land
owners is not required.
The compensation provided to landowners in urban areas increased to 2 times from 1.3
times the price of land and in rural areas increased to 4 times from 2 times the price of
land REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT The old act had no provision for
resettlement and rehabilitation. The 2013 act provides both resettlement and
rehabilitation to not only the landowners but also to those dependent on the land for
livelihood and affected by its acquisition
SECTION 26 - Determination of Compensation: This section provides for the determination of
compensation by the District Collector, taking into consideration the market value, the value
of the assets attached to the land, and other factors specified in the act.
SECTION 27 - Rehabilitation and Resettlement: This section provides for rehabilitation and
resettlement of landowners, which includes provision of housing, employment opportunities,
and other benefits.
SECTION 28 - Time-bound payment of Compensation: This section provides for the time-
bound payment of compensation, which must be made within a period of 12 months from the
date of award.
SECTION 29 - Dispute Resolution Mechanism: This section provides for a dispute resolution
mechanism for any disputes arising out of the compensation awarded, which includes the
establishment of a National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Dispute
Resolution Authority.
SECTION 30 - Offences and Penalties: This section provides for penalties for any violation of
the provisions of the act, which includes imprisonment and/or a fine. It also provides for
punishment for false information provided by landowners or their representatives.
CONCLUSION
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

The United Nations registered “Metro Project in Delhi” as a CDM (Clean Development
Mechanism) project. Delhi metro is the world's first urban rail system certified by the United
Nations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United Nations, Delhi
metro reduces a 6.3 lakh ton pollution level every year, and contributes to the reduction of
global warming. (as of 2011)
Following the first and second phase of “Metro Project in Delhi,” Mitsubishi Electric
received orders for electric subway equipment from Bangalore and Mumbai. Mitsubishi
Electric delivered locomotive products with energy-saving technologies including electric
power generating brake systems. Mitsubishi Electric has already delivered around one
thousand cars to India where it is now a nationwide policy to install more subways in every
city.

3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AP V. RAVI SANTOSH REDDY

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
In this case, the court reprimanded the government as “the State unnecessarily pursued this
pity matter to this Court in this appeal, which does not involve any arguable point either on
facts or in law nor it involves any point of public importance and nor it involves any
substantial money claim.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
he appellant-State acquired 53 acres of land pursuant to the notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 11.05.1978.
This notification included the land belonging to the respondents’ predecessors measuring
around 13 acres 18 guntas situated in Nagireddy village Palli in District Nalgonda in AP. It
was acquired for the purpose of laying down New Broad Gauge line.On 20.03.1980, the Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his Award No. 12 of 1980 divided the land into three
categories and awarded the compensation to all the landowners whose lands had been
acquired including the respondents’ predecessor at the rate of Rs.1100/-, Rs.1200/- and
Rs.1700/- per acre respectively. 5) The respondents’ predecessor then filed reference in Civil
Court (subordinate Judge, Bhongir) under Section 18 of the Act being O.P. No.7 of 1987 for
re-determination of the compensation.
This reference was referred to Lok Adalat for mutual settlement. 6) On 07.12.1988, in
pursuance of the order passed by the Lok Adalat, the subordinate Judge at Bhongir passed an
award and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondents. In terms of the award, the
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

respondents were entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 6,42,681/- by way of compensation for his
land from the State.
By order dated 15.09.1997, the executing Court bi- party determined the amount payable to
the respondents by the State towards compensation and issued warrants against the judgment-
debtor (State) for recovery of the interest amount of Rs.50,000/- and odd as it was found still
payable by the State to the respondents due to delay on their part in paying the decreetal sum.
It is pertinent to mention that this order was not challenged by the State in higher Courts and
hence it attained finality. 8) However, the State made an application being E.A. No. 41 of
1997 in E.P. No. 34 of 1993 seeking to recall the order dated 15.09.1997. By order dated
22.10.1997, the executing court dismissed the said application made by the State.
ISSUE
- whether the order dated 15.09.1997, passed in E.P. No. 34 of 1993, directing
attachment of the moveables of the petitioner should have been recalled. The order
dated 15.09.1997 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
REASONING
- Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the reasoning given by the
High Court is just and proper. As rightly held by the High Court, the proper remedy
available to the State in this case was to challenge the main order dated 15.09.1997.
This order (15.09.1997) was not challenged by the State. It, therefore, attained
finality.
- hough order dated 15.09.1997 was never under challenge in any proceedings at the
instance of the State, yet we perused the said order with a view to find out its
sustainability. We find that the executing Court found that the State was liable to pay
a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interest due to delayed payment of decreetal sum for the
period mentioned therein. It is for realization of this amount (Rs.50,000/-), the warrant
of attachment had been issued at the instance of the respondents against the State
properties.
JUDGMENT
the State unnecessarily pursued this pity matter to this Court in this appeal, which does not
involve any arguable point either on facts or in law nor it involves any point of public
importance and nor it involves any substantial money claim. What was involved was only the
calculation of payment of interest on the decreetal sum for a particular period. In this Court
also, learned counsel was unable to show any kind of illegality or perversity in the said
calculation made by the executing Court while working out the liability of the State in paying
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

Rs.50,000/- towards interest. Therefore, it was, in our view, a sheer abuse of process on the
part of the State to pursue a matter in filing a misconceived appeal against an interim order,
which we do not approve. It is unfortunate that a genuine claim of the respondents was not
satisfied by the State for such a long time.

4. INDORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In this case, the court held that “Section 24 of Act Applies to a proceeding pending on the
date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
FACTS
BACKGROUND
Full Bench decisions of the Supreme Court had previously arrived at opposing conclusions
on the interpretation of Section 24, which is how the matter came to be placed before a 5-
judge bench. The Constitution Bench has adopted the view of the earlier Indore Development
Authority v Shailendra &Ors (“IDA 2018”) (decided on 08.02.2018) and over-ruled Pune
Municipal Corporation v HarakchandMisirimal Solanki &Ors (decided on 24.01.2014).
Section 24:
Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,—
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then,
all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b)
where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award
under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of
this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has
not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respe..”
FACTS
The primary controversy revolved around the meaning of the word ‘paid’. The Pune
Municipal Corporation held that if a land holder refused to accept the compensation when
tendered due to a dispute, it would be deemed to have been paid only when it was deposited
into a court and not when it was deposited into the government treasury. On the other
hand, IDA 2018 said that compensation would be deemed to have been paid the moment it
was tendered by the Collector, irrespective of the correctness of its quantum and of the fact
that it was unacceptable to the land holder.
ISSUES
a. What is the meaning of the expression paid'/tender' in Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013') and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
LA (Act of 1894')? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2)
of the Act of 1894 results into lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of
2013.
b. What are the consequences of non- deposit in Court especially when compensation
has been tendered and refused under section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 and section
24(2) of the Act of 2013? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of
their wrong/conduct?
c. Whether the word or' should be read as conjunctive or disjunctive in Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013?
REASONING
- Section 24 (1) (a) contemplates that where no award under Section 11 of the LA Act
has been made, but proceedings had been initiated under said Act, provisions of the
Act of 2013 would apply limited to the determination of compensation. In other
words, the entire exercise de novo, under the Act of 2013, will not be required to be
undertaken. Therefore, Section 24 (1) (a) contemplates a limited applicability of the
Act of 2013.
- Section 24 (1) (b) stipulates that where an award under Section 11 of the LA Act has
been made, the entire proceedings would continue under that law and the provisions
of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable. Section 24 (1) (b) is the larger umbrella
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

clause under Section 24, which protects the vested rights of the parties under the LA
Act if the stage of passing of award has been crossed.
OBJECT OF SECTION 24
The context of Section 24, is to provide for a transitory provision viz. to take care of the
pending land acquisition proceedings which are ongoing under the LA Act when the Act of
2013 is brought into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. The purpose and object of making this provision is
to balance the competing rights of public projects vis-à-vis holders of the land. The object
and purpose was to ensure that where acquisition proceedings under LA Act have reached an
advanced stage and investment of public money had already been made, firstly, the lapsing of
such ongoing projects should be avoided and secondly as far as possible, the land owners also
can, without disturbing the process of acquisition, be given the compensation under the Act
of 2013.
THE WORD ‘OR’ USED IN SECTION 24(2) BETWEEN POSSESSION AND COMPENSATION HAS

TO BE READ AS ‘NOR’ OR AS ‘AND’.

The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as
‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been
taken then there is no lapse.
- Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for
higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
- Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question
the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It
does not revive and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings
nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.
- The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are
applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and
pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The
period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
computation of five years.
JUDGMENT
the land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013).

JUDICIARY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1. TEHRI BANDH VIRODHI SANGHARSH SAMITI V STATE OF UP AND

OTHERS
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
The Court held that it does not possess the requisite expertise to render any final opinion on
the rival contentions of the experts. The court can only investigate and adjudicate
thequestion as to whether the Government was conscious to the inherent danger as
pointedout bythe petitioners and applied its mind to the safety of thedam.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners have filed thispetition in public interest under Article 32 of the
Constitution prayingthat the respondents be restrained from constructing and implementing
the Tehri Hydro Power Project and the Tehri Dam.
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether the Government of UP took all necessary measures prior to the approval of
dam construction?
- Whether judiciary can look into the aspects regarding the design of the dam etc?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
- They allege that in preparing the plan for Tehri Dam Project the safety aspect has not
been taking into consideration;
- that the dam, if allowed to be constructed, will pose a serious threat to the fife,
ecology and the environments of the entire northern India as the site of the dam is
prone to earthquake; and
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- that the Government of India had not applied its mind to this very important aspect
in preparing the project.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondents, on the other hand, assert that the Government of India, through its various
departments and ministries has at every stage considered all relevant data and fully
applied its mind to the safety and various other aspects of the project.
REASONING AND JUDGMENT
Dismissing the petition, this Court, HELD:
(1) The Union of India considered the question of safety of the project in various details
more than once. It satisfied itself by obtaining the reports ofexperts and also took into
consideration the dissenting view of Dr. V.K. Gaur. The project has been finalised after
obtaining the expert report of Prof. Jai Krislma.
In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the Union of India has not applied its
mind or has not considered the relevant aspects of the safety of the Dam.
The questions relating to the design of the dam, the seismic potential of site where the dam is
proposed to be constructed, and the various steps which have been taken for ensuring the
safety of the dam 607 are highly intricate questions relating to science and engineering.
This Court does not possess the requisite expertise to render any final opinion on the rival
contentions of the experts. The court can only investigate and adjudicate the question
as to whether the Governmentwas conscious to the inherent danger as pointed out by the
petitioners and applied its mind to the safety of the dam.

2. GOA FOUNDATION v. KONKAN RAILWAYS- BOMBAY HIGH COURT

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

The court stated that “The machinery of the Court should not be used for subserving the
private interest or the interest of a local area to the detriment of the public at large.”
FACTS
Very few people are fortunate to see their dreams fulfilled and pbople residing on the west
coast saw fulfillment of their dream when the Central Government decided to provide a broad
guage railway line from Bombay to Mangalore and thereafter to extend to the State of Kerala.
It was a longstanding demand of the people in the region for a cheap and fast transport to
improve the economic conditions and to make accessible the hinterlands in the State of
Maharashtra, State of Goa and State of Karnataka.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

The Central Government was considering providing a railway line for a considerable length
of time but the project was postponed from time to time due to lack of requisite funds.
Ultimately the Central Government took a decision to provide the line and to achieve that
purpose. The Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., a public limited Company, was set up. The
length of the line from Bombay to Mangalore along the west coast is to be 760 Kilometres
and out of that 106 Kilometres line runs through the State of Goa.
The cost of the project was envisaged at Rs. 1391 crores in the year 1991-92. The Central
Government set up a Corporation as the total allocation of the Planning Commission was
only to the order of Rs. 300 crores and, therefore, it was incumbent for the Corporation to
raise the funds for seeking equity contribution from the Ministry of Railways and the
beneficiary States of Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala. The Corporation was also
conferred with powers to raise money with issuance of 9% tax-free bonds from financial
institutions and public borrowings. The Konkan Railway alignment passes through different
terrain in different States and the Corporation is required to construct large number of tunnels
and projects over rivers. The Railway line will have 136 major bridges and 1670 minor
bridges and there will be 71 tunnels with a total length of 75 Kms.
The Konkan Railway is the biggest railway project undertaken in the Indian sub-continent in
the present century. The project was approved after detailed and long-drawn survey of
various aspects of the matter and the Corporation was constituted in July, 1990 to undertake
the exercise which is of an extensive magnitude
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
- the proposed alignment has been planned and undertaken without an adequate
Environment Impact Assessment (E.I.A.) and an Environment Management Plan
(R.M.P.).
- even though the ecological damage will not be felt immediately, such damage will be
gradual and will lead to the deterioration of the land quality and will affect large
number of people.
- as the proposed alignment passes across the rivers, creeks, basins and backwaters, the
Corporation cannot proceed to carry out the work without obtaining the statutory
clearance required under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- The petitioners are not opposing the project undertaken by the Corporation, their
challenge is only to the proposed Railway alignment as it violates the provisions of
the Environment (Protection) Act and Regulations and Notifications thereunder.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- the proposed alignment would destroy the natural environment in many areas and
undermine the ingenious centuries old man made environment of the Khazan lands.
- the geology of Goa consists essentially of reddish iron and manganese bearing rocky
strata which gets softened in the process of monsoon lateritizatipn. It is contended that
the softer rocks of goa have been eroded over the ages to a base level of erosion much
below the sea level and due to this geological reason, Zuari, Mandovi and Chapora are
the three rivers on the west coast in which the ocean tides sweep inland for several
kilometres.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
- after the Corporation was constituted the entire route was surveyed and the line
required for the project had been demarcated and the land acquisition process has
already commenced.
- THE CORPORATION HAS ALREADY SECURED POSSESSION OF 80% OF THE

REQUIRED LAND BY APPLYING URGENCY CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE

LAND ACQUISI-TION ACT.

- The Corporation has also awarded "several contracts for construction of bridges,
tunnels and work has commenced all along the line. Several engineers have been
posted on the field and the physical progress achieved is about 20% of the total length
of line.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- providing a rail line is neither a political nor a religious issue but is undertaken for
providing basic necessity of cheap and quick mode of transport. It hardly requires to
be stated that the cheap and fast mode of transport would lead to speedy development
of backward areas in four States and which has immense potential in terms of human
and material reasources. The rail line running through the four States would confer
immense benefit upon the citizens in carrying passengers and goods from the
backward areas.
- The State of Goa has abundant natural resources and the railway line would assist in
setting up mangrove and mineral base and sea food leading to the prosperity of the
common man. The existing transport facilites by road are entirely inadequate to cater
to the needs of the people in transporting their goods to the large towns.
- The submission is misconceived because the trees are cut for a public purpose to
provide a rail line. Apart from this consideration, the Corporation points out that a
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

project has been undertaken to plant double the number of trees which will be
required to cut down for providing the rail line
- It would not be out of place to mention that the averment on this count made in the
petition is extremely vague
- Court held that the claim of the petitioners that the alignment would have devastating
and irreversible impact upon the khazan lands is without any foundation, and even
otherwise, the extent of damage is extremely negligible and a public project of such a
magnitude which is undertaken for meeting the aspirations of the people on the west
coast cannot be defeated on such considerations.
- It is not open to frustrate the project of public importance to safeguard the interest of
few persons. No development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology
and environment but the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is
necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the
environment.
- The Corporation is also right in the contention that the provisions of the Environment
Act have no application in respect of work undertaken in exercise of powers conferred
under SECTION 11 OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1989. Section 11, inter alia, provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway Administration
may, for the purposes of constructing or maintaining a railway, make or construct in
or upon, across, under or over any lands, or any streets, hills, valleys, roads, streams,
or other waters, rivers as it thinks proper. The wide ambit of the provisions of Section
11 and the non-obstante Clause makes it extremely clear that the provisions of the
Environment Act do not bind the construction or maintainance of a railway line. The
Railways Act is a legislation enacted subsequent to the Environment Act and the
Corporation is right in claiming that for the purpose of providing railway line,
clearance is not required even though the line passes over the railways, rivers, creeks,
etc. in view of the specific provisions of Section 11 of the Railways Act.
JUDGMENT
- The Court declined to exercise our writ jurisdiction in such cases because the writ
jurisdiction is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat exercises
undertaken by the Government for the public benefit.
- The machinery of the Court should not be used for subserving the private interest or
the interest of a local area to the detriment of the public at large.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

3. RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA AND OTHERS V

STATE OF UP AND OTHERS, AIR 1988 SC 218
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case is also famously known as the ‘Dehradun Valley litigation’ In Mussoorie hill range
of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out. Limestone was extracted by
blasting out the hills with dynamite. Due to lack of vegetation, many landslides occurred
which killed villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural lands. In 1961,
mining was prohibited in the state by the state minister of mines.
quarry operations reopened the mining operations by successfully lobbying with the chief
Minister of the state under which they got mining leases for 20 years. This led to corrupt and
illegal practices and still there was no enforcement of safety rules. In 1982, eighteen leases
came up for renewal, which were rejected by the State on account of the ecological
destruction. However, an injunction was granted by the Allahabad High Court which allowed
the applicants to continue mining, giving the reason that economic benefits outweighed
ecological factors.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra sent a letter of complaint to the Supreme Court
which was against environmental degradation. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition
under article 32. More than 100 mines joined this and the litigation became complex. The
Supreme Court conducted a review of the need for mining operations and provided for
funding and administrative oversight of reforestation of the region.
the blasting operations, while it was reviewing to determine whether the mines were being
operated in compliance with the safety standards as laid down in the Mines Act of 1952 and
other relevant mining regulations. The Court appointed an expert committee (the Bhargava
Committee) to assess the mines. In March 1985, the court denied leases to the most
dangerous mines falling within Mussoorie city and ceased their operations. This was done
upon the recommendation of the BHARGAVA COMMITTEE.
By Order dated 11th August 1983 appointed a Committee consisting of Shri D.N. Bhargav,
Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of
Mines Safety and Col. P. Mishra, Head of the Indian Photo Interpretation Institute (National
Remote Sensing Agency) for the purpose of inspecting, the lime stone quarries mentioned in
the writ petition as also in the list submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This
Committee which we shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as the Bhargav
Committee, submitted three reports after inspecting most of the lime stone quarries and t
divided the lime stone quarries into three groups. The lime stone quarries comprised in
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

category were those where in the opinion of the Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of
the mining operations was relatively less pronounced; category comprised those lime stone
duarries where in the opinion of the Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of mining
operations was relatively more pronounced and category covered those lime stone quarries
which had been directed to be closed down by the Bhargav Committee under the orders made
by us on account of deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of more serious nature.
ARGUMENTS:
In order to allay any apprehensions on the part of the lessees that the District Authorities had
not done their job correctly in assessing the quantity of minerals lying at the site, appointed a
Committee of two officers, namely, Shri D. Bandophadyay and Director of Geology (Mines)
Lucknow for the purpose of visiting the time stone quarries which had been directed to be
closed down and to assess the quantity of minerals lying on the site of those limestone
quarries after giving notice to the concerned lessees as also to the District Magistrate
Dehradun and the representatives of the petitioners. Pursuant to this order made by us, Shri
D, Bandhopadhyay and the Director of Guology (Mines) Lucknow visited the lime stone
quarries comprised in category of the Bhargav Committee Report and directed to be closed
down and assessed the quantity of minerals lying at the site of each of these lime stone
quarries. The quantity of minerals lying at the site, a cording to Shri D. Bandopadhyay and
the Director of Geology (Mines), was very much less than what was claimed by the lessees
and it does appear that though these lime stone quarries were directed to be closed down,
illegal mining was being carried on clandestinely, because otherwise it is difficult to
understand how the figures of the quantity of the minerals lying at the site as assessed in
December.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
The lime stone quarries which were dangerously close to the M.B.T. should be closed down,
because they were in this sensitive and vulnerable belt. We shall examine this Report in detail
when we give our reason but we may straight away point out that we do not think it safe to
direct continuance or discontinuance of mining operations in lime stone quarries on the basis
of the M.B.T. We are therefore not basing our conclusions on the Report of Prof. K.S. Valdia

JUDGMENT:
No part of the minerals lying at the site shall be removed by the lessees except in the presence
of the above mentioned three persons. The lessees will on the expiry of the period of four
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

weeks submit a report to this Court setting out the precise quantities of minerals removed by
them from the site pursuant to this Order made by Court. The lessees shall not be entitled to
remove any minerals after the expiration of the period of four weeks.

4. CASE STUDY ON POLAVARAM PROJECT

INTRODUCTION
In India, the National River Linking Project (NRLP), which is the world’s largest water
project in the making and involves the construction of several dams. The 168‐billion‐dollar
project is designed to connect the majority of Indian rivers to a gigantic water grid.NRLP
entails polavaram project as well.
The main aim of construction of this projects is not only the infrastructure development but
for the irrigation purpose where by construction of like this mega dams will provide the
sufficient water to the lakhs of the hectares of land to cultivate and for irrigational purposes,
so in order to develop the irrigation in the barell lands the government of India has taken up
and started construction of these mega projects across the India based upon the feasibility and
necessity out of that only the construction of polavaram project was started in the Andhra
Pradesh.

POLAVARAM PROJECT
Polavaram Project is a multi-purpose irrigation project situated on the Godavari River in
Andhra Pradesh, India. The project aims to provide irrigation to 2.91 lakh hectares of land,
generate 960 MW of hydroelectricity and provide drinking water to 540 villages and towns in
the state. It is one of the most ambitious and complex river projects in India, covering five
districts of Andhra Pradesh, namely East Godavari, Vishakhapatnam, West Godavari,
Krishna, and Khammam.The main reason/moto behind taking up these projects are to provide
the water to all the people in the country and as well as to use the water for the hydro power
plant and also helpful for the farmers to cultivate the crops, where by constructing this type of
projects the water can be stored and can supply to the nearby areas.
- HISTORY:
The idea for the Polavaram project dates back to 1941 when Sir Arthur Cotton proposed the
construction of a dam across the Godavari river to provide irrigation facilities to the delta
areas of the state. The project gained momentum in the 1970s when the government of
Andhra Pradesh commissioned the Central Water Commission (CWC) to conduct a
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

feasibility study. The project was declared a national project in 2014, and the central
government allocated INR 1,350 crores for its construction. The foundation stone for the
project was laid in December 2017 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
the central government had taken up the initiative of the NRLP programme as a part of this
scheme the central government in collaboration with the state government had started this
Polavaram project and still the construction is going on . It includes the construction of two
canals, the first of which connects the Godavari and Krishna Rivers and has been operational
since 2015. Across the country many of the people had filed a different cases in different
regarding the violation of their basic rights by the concerned government by sanctioning and
construction of these projects because it includes and requires the hectares of land for
construction of the project and for the construction of the long canals to link the rivers during
the acquisition of the land for these projects many villages and town has to get evacuated for
this purpose and the people staying in that area has to be get compensated for the property
they had lost under this project. So, finally the Supreme Court in the year 2012 had lay down
and held that “We have no hesitation in observing that the national interest must take
precedence over the interest of the individual States. The State Governments are expected to
view national problems with a greater objectivity, rationality and spirit of service to the
nation and ill‐ founded objections may result in greater harm, not only to the neighbouring
States but also to the nation at large”(IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS’)
- BACKGROUND
Indira sagarPolavaram an interstate project on river Godavari has been conceived as a part of
recommendations of Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT). GWDT finalized its award
in 1980. The award identifies individual projects that can be taken up by the co-basin states
of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh (AP) on the main Godavari river as well as its tributaries. As a part of the award, the
states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa executed an agreement dated 02-04-
1980 to enable clearance of Polavaram Project to be undertaken by AP.
Relevant provisions of the agreement are reproduced below. “Polavaram project spillway
shall be designed for a flood discharge capacity of 36 Lakh cusecs at the pond level of 140
feet and not less than 20 lakh cusecs at pond level of 130 feet. In order to protect the lands
and properties above 150 feet in the territory of Orissa likely to be affected due to
construction of Polavaram project, protective embankments with adequate drainage sluices
shall be constructed and maintained at the cost of Polavaram project.
- NATIONAL PROJECT
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

State Govt. had submitted the proposal of the project for inclusion as National Project in
April, 2009 as per guidelines for National Projects issued by the Ministry of Water
Resources, Govt. of India. The project was recommended by the High Powered Steering
Committee for inclusion as National Project in August, 2009. The EFC memorandum was
discussed in the EFC meeting held on 5.3.2010 and it was decided that state govt. may work
out realistic cost & implementation programme of the project. The cost of the project has
been updated as Rs.16010.45 crore at 2010-11 price leve
- ISSUES
The project includes the construction of two canals, the first of which was completed in 2015
and now connects Godavari and Krishna rivers and provides en route irrigation. Still under
construction is the dam site itself, with a dam wall of 46 meters, and the second canal, which
will transfer water to the city of Visakhapatnam. According to government estimates, the
project will submerge 276 villages. However this figure is contradicted by activists who
speak of more than 323 villages to be submerged. A total area of at least 38,000 hectares, out
of which 4,000 hectares is forest area, will be affected
Bifurcation: The Andhra Pradesh state made Telangana’s approval of the Polavaram Project
a fundamental condition for entering into negotiations. In the process, the Polavaram Project
was declared a national project, and therefore eligible to receive funds from the central
government. However, as of now the project remains in the hands of the Andhra Pradesh
government and the central government involvement remains limited to funding provision.
- LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING POLAVARAM PROJECT
- The Polavaram project is in violation of THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND

TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT

ACT, 2013, which provides for “land for land” in command area for the affected
people under irrigation projects and protection to ensure that “all benefits, including
the reservation benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes in
the affected area shall continue in the resettlement area”.
- It is also mandatory for obtaining prior consent of concerned Gram Sabha or the
Panchayats in the Scheduled Area under PANCHAYAT EXTENSION TO SCHEDULED
AREAS ACT (PESA) 1996.
DISPLACING ADIVASI COMMUNITIES
- The Polavaram Project could result in the largest displacement caused by dam
construction in India’s history. And with that many problems arise, including that of
resettlement. With regards to Adivasi communities in particular, the numbers are
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

alarming. For every five evacuees, three are reported to be Adivasis. In the villages
barely any non‐Adivasis can be found
- the governments will generally use to follow THE BENTHAMS PRINCIPLEi.e if
the large number/ majority of them are getting benefitted for any decision in that
situation we cannot consider the minority rights, here the government is providing the
compensation for the name sack which is in adequate when compare to the market
value and they are not providing any rehabilitation and resettlement to the effected
people who had lost their property and shelter.
- ARTICLE 244 (1) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION , the Fifth Scheduled Areas Act,
Provisions as to the Administration and Control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled
Tribes, regulates the establishment of such designated Scheduled Areas. On the basis
of this article, the Andhra Pradesh government passed THE LAND TRANSFER
REGULATION ACT IN 1970, commonly referred to as the 1/70 Act. It prohibits the
transfer of tribal land to non-tribal in such Scheduled Areas.
- The state has therefore unlawfully acquired Adivasi land in order to implement the
Polavaram Project.
ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO COMPENSATION
- Where it was calculated and plan was made like the if any of the non-adivasi had lost
his house as the part of the acquisition of the land and property with respect to the
construction of the project for those people the government had decide to provide the
compensation in the form of money which is equivalent to the lostproperty, but
where-as for the adivasi’s the government had prepared a plan like instead of paying
the compensation they were provided with the new houses which is equivalent to the
value of what they lost and acquired by the government. However, it should be noted
that as most of the land earmarked for submergence is in a Scheduled Area, non‐
Adivasis should not be in possession of any land holdings within that area at all, as
per the 1/70s Act. It therefore seems contradictory that non‐ Adivasis should possess a
large share of land titles in the area, and are entitled to claim compensation for their
loss.
- The second major compensation package, the land package, offers land to land
compensation for up to 6.5 acres (2.6 hectare). For land owners with more than 6.5
acres, money will be given as compensation for those acres exceeding the 6.5 acres
limit. Yet a major difficulty is that the government is not in possession of as much
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

land as is needed to compensate all those affected. People are often compensated with
separate acres of land, long distances apart. Consequently, they are not all cultivable
at the same time
Government of Orissa has filed original Suit No. 4 of 2007 and various Interlocutory
Applications in the Supreme Court against clearances granted by various Central Agencies
including ministry of water resources and against proceeding with the construction of
Polavaram project by Andhra Pradesh Government and making defendant no. 1 to Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh, defendant no. 2 to Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India,
defendant No. 3 to Ministry of Environment and Forest and defendant No.4 to Ministry of
Tribal Affairs a part from this the Orissa state government had also filed another suit before
the apex court stating that because of the construction of the multipurpose project some parts
under their state specifically the tribal areas will get submerged into the reservoir for this the
state government had asked the central government to change the design so that there will be
the certain area which can be prevented from submerging into the spill way It fears that
proper environmental assessment and studies were not conducted on the backwater extent in
the Sabari and Sileru parts of Odisha and the Odisha stateovernment had also stated there
were many violations which is happening against the award passed by GWDT. For this the
apex court had passed the order to the Andhra Pradesh state government to reply to the
problem filed by the Orissa state government
LAND DISPLACEMENT ISSUE
Earlier to the 2013 act the 1894 land acquisition act was prevailed which was enacted during
the post-independence and was enacted by the during the British era in those days the
legislators as well as the government was not given much importance to the rights of the
people who are living in their countries
the sec-4 of the 1894 act deals with the payment of the compensation and the owner of the
land is having the right to receive the adequate monetary compensation from the government
this was the position at the time of this issues was started and based on this and the loopholes
in the statutes were used by the government and the project authorities to violate the basic
rights guaranteed to the people under the constitution, on paper it was there that whatever the
memorandum of understanding was entered by the State government with the NHPC it was
clearly mentioned that they have to comply with the rehabilitation and resettlement
procedures which the way the planning commission was directed but they had failed to do so
where the apex court in a caseheld that rehabilitation should be completed before the six
months when the area of the land was going to be submerged, rehabilitation should be
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

complete in respect of homestead, substitution of agricultural property and such other

arrangements which are contemplated under the rehabilitation scheme (B. D. SHARMA VS

UNION OF INDIA)
THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS LIKE LOSS OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DELAY IN
RECEIVING COMPENSATION AND DENIAL OF REHABILITATION.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The Polavaram project has been facing several legal and environmental challenges, which
have delayed its construction and increased its cost. To ensure the successful completion of
the project, the following recommendations can be made:
- The state government should ensure that the acquisition of land for the project is done
in accordance with the provisions of the LARR Act and that adequate compensation is
paid to the affected families.
- The state government should conduct a comprehensive EIA study to assess the
environmental impact of the project and take necessary measures to mitigate any
adverse impact.
- The state government should address the concerns of the tribal communities who are
likely to be displaced by the project and ensure that their rights are protected. The
central government should provide adequate funding for the project to ensure its
timely completion.
- The state government should ensure that the project is executed in a transparent and
accountable manner and that there is no corruption or malpractice in the allocation of
contracts and procurement of materials.

5. PROF. AJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

(FROM SLIDES)
writ petition had been filed by the petitioner against the indiscriminate, illegal construction
activities in the green zones as demarcated by the Lake Development Authority, Nainital and
other prohibited areas of Nainital, …..for declaration of Nainital area as an 'Eco-Sensitive
Zone' and for preservation of recharge-zones of Nainital Lake.
PRAYER
- issuance of an ad-interim mandamus directing the respondent authorities to
immediately stop the destructive activities in the 'Eco-Sensitive Zone' of Sukhatal and
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- to take measures to revive the Sukhatal Lake owing to its importance as life line and
recharge zone of the Naini Lake and
- there had been no prayer as regards demolition of any property or as regards troubling
the local public.
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to
functionalize the District Disaster Management Authority and to channelize the sanction of
all the development and construction plans through it, fixing strict accountability on its
officials.
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to
immediately take strict measures for the clearance of construction over the reacharge zones of
Naini Lake like inside the shoreline of Sukhatal, and to take other remedial measures for
mitigation of the damage caused by the illegal and unplanned construction and developmental
activities
On October 20, 2020, the court observed the state Tourism Development Board and district
magistrate of Nainital to work out an alternative.

6. INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT (I) P. LTD. V BHARAT ALUMINIUM

COMPANY LIMITED 27 JULY, 2007

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In this case, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the Court had no jurisdiction to try this
case albeit the jurisdiction was left blank in the contract. In addition to that, the court held
that the disputes shall be solved amicably.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondent invited tenders for installation of Aerial Ropeway System at Gandhamardan
Bauxite Project on turn key basis in Orissa by issuing Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).A letter
of intent dated 13.10.1983 was issued by respondent to the petitioner accepting offer of the
petitioner for rope way on turn key basis for a value of Rs. 5,27,32,500/-. This letter provided
that the date of contract will start when Balco (respondent) pays 10% advance after issuance
of letter of intent and the contract was to be completed within a period of 22 months from the
date when 10% advance was paid. The petitioner was supposed to submit a bank guarantee
for this advance of 10% of the contract value in the Balco's prescribed format within 10 days
of issuance of letter. The contract was to be governed by the terms and conditions as per
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

the work on the project could not take off and was kept on hold. 10% advance was not paid
by the respondent. The reason for hold up, as can be found out from the pleadings and
correspondence between the parties being that the final environmental clearance was denied
by the Central Government. There was also an agitation by the local tribal people against the
project. The correspondence between the parties and pleading also reveal that when the NIT
was issued, the State Government had provisional environment clearance with it and it was
quite hopeful of getting final environment clearance. However, the project could have
commenced only if the final environment clearance was granted by the Central Government.
The environment clearance was ultimately denied by the Central Government.
The petitioner wrote to the respondent that due to change in the project as first contemplated
and awarded in 1983, the original terms and conditions can no longer apply and the
differences and disputes have to be resolved in equitable and just manner petitioner
enumerated various issues which needed resolution as under:
i. Payment for goods inspected and supplied at site.
ii. ii. Payment and acceptance for goods and supplies ordered on account of Balco
project ready and awaiting dispatch.
iii. Liability on account of cancellation of orders or compensation to Suppliers for
placing them On Hold.
iv. Relief and reimbursement of overheads, establishment and other direct/indirect
costs incurred by petitioner consequent upon the Hold placed by Balco for the
period of involvement.
v. revision of contractual price and conditions of contract or in case Balco chooses to
abandon the work to assess and pay for loss of profits and damages after
deducting the advance payments.
vi. Immediate interim relief in terms of paras 1 to 4 to enable to meet pressing
commitments / liabilities.
Petitioner wrote another letter dated 16.8.1988 to the respondent wherein it noted that the
respondent was still making efforts to obtain necessary clearance and to revive the project.
However, petitioner wanted that decision on outstanding disputes be urgently taken and
disputes be resolved. The petitioner thereafter suo motu appointed Justice H.L. Anand, a
retired Judge of Delhi High Court, as sole arbitrator to decide all the outstanding disputes and
asked the respondent to give its objections to the appointment within 15 days.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

The petitioner filed the present suit under SECTION 20 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1940 on
22.10.1988 praying the court that respondent be directed to file arbitration agreement and the
disputes between the parties be referred to Justice H.L. Anand (Retd.)
The suit was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 3.3.2004 holding that the provision
of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 would apply in this case and this Court appointed
Sh. A.B. Saharia (Retd.) Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court as the sole
arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. A writ petition being WPC No.
5450/2004 was preferred against this judgment before Division Bench of this Court and vide
order dated 17.2.2005, the order of this Court was quashed in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Milk Food v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Limited and U.P. State Sugar
Corporation Limited v. Jain Construction Co. and Anr.
ISSUES
1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition
2. Whether there exists a valid, subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties
3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the petitioner has not properly invoked the
arbitration agreement
4. What are the disputes required to be referred for arbitration.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
- there was no clause in the NIT or in the General Conditions of the Contract providing
that court in Bilaspur/Ratnagiri would have jurisdiction to determine the disputes. In
the NIT, the clause of jurisdiction of the Court has been left blank. In NIT the venue
of the arbitration is stated to be administrative office Bilaspur/ Ratnagiri.
- It is argued that merely because arbitration had to take place at administrative office
Bilaspur/ Ratnagiri, jurisdiction of Delhi courts is not taken out. It is submitted by
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the letter of acceptance of the offer of the work
was sent from its Delhi office by the respondent.
- Since offer was accepted at Delhi, the Contract was concluded at Delhi and therefore
in view of SECTION 4 OF CONTRACT ACT, Delhi courts would have jurisdiction.
- It is also submitted that this Court would have jurisdiction in view OF SECTION 20
CPC as the respondent at relevant time was having its head office in Delhi and cause
of action had partly arisen in Delhi.
- Irrespective of the frustration of the main contract, the arbitration agreement will not
get frustrated.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- This court has no jurisdiction as the agreement itself states that Bilaspur will have the
jurisdiction to try the case;
- In this case, the agreement had got frustrated as the circumstances had made the
continuance of the contract impossible.
REASONING
- It is settled law that if two or more courts have jurisdiction over the matter, the parties
by an agreement can choose the jurisdiction of one of the court to the exclusion of
other. The reference may be made in this regard to ABC LAMINART PVT. LTD. AND

ANR. ANGILE INSULATIONS V. DAVY ASHMORE INDUS. LTD APPAREL EXPORT

PROMOTION COUNCIL V. PRABHATI PATNI, PCF.
- In this case the choice of the parties is clear from the jurisdiction clause. Although, in
the arbitration clause the column of jurisdiction is blank, however, in the subsequent
part of the contract between the parties, this blank stands explained and filled up and
it is specifically provided that only court at Bilaspur shall have jurisdiction in respect
of all disputes arising or connected with the agreement.
- Jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked for filing an application under Section
20 of the Arbitration Act and only the courts at Bilaspur/ Ratnagiri shall have
jurisdiction.
- It is thus clear that the petitioner had intimated to the respondent in writing all
disputes which respondent felt had arisen due to holding of the contract and none
payment of the money to the contractor.
JUDGMENT
this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and courts at Bilaspur/ Ratnagiri has jurisdiction, the
petition is hereby dismissed.

RERA
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

A. VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

AND ANOTHER

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE

In this case, the Rajasthan RERA held that prior to acceptance of amount exceeding 10
percent, it is sine qua non to execute an agreement for sale and get it registered. This is in
consonance with Section 13 of the RERA ACT.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant’s grievance is that he had participated in an auction and upon being
successful bidder, he was allotted a plot in the project of the respondent i.e., METRO
ENCLAVE. As per the terms and conditions of the said auction, the complainant had already
deposited 15 percent of the amount with the respondent.
However, the respondent sought demand note of 35 percent of the amount without executing
an agreement for sale. The said demand note entailed a warning wherein it was stated that in
case the complainant doesn’t pay the amount within time, 15% interest will be levied. The
complainant persist that as per SECTION 13 OF THE RERA, 2016- AN AGREEMENT
OF SALE is necessary prior to paying additional amount to the respondent.
- PRAYER
Therefore, the prayer of the complainant is that Respondent No.1 should be directed to
execute an agreement for sale in terms of section 13 of the Act and be restrained from asking
for deposit of the remaining amount until such an agreement is executed and registered.
ISSUES INVOLVED
a. Whether an agreement is sine qua non under Section 13 of the RERA ACT, 2016?
b. Whether the respondent is under an obligation to execute and register agreement for
sale prior to the demand of additional amount?
COMPLAINTANT’S ARGUMENTS
He argued that:
- The amount of 15 percent was already paid to the respondent;
- As per Section 13 OF THE ACT, for the additional amount, it is sine qua non to
execute an agreement for sale.
- In this case, since he had already paid 15%, the respondent is under an obligation to
execute and register an agreement for sale.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondent argued that:
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- An agreement for sale is not required to be executed in the present case as Respondent
No. I is a statutory body and the requirement of agreement for sale not fit into the
overall scheme under which Respondent operates.
- The auction has been done under the Disposal Urban Land Rules of 1974 and as per
the terms and conditions of auction that were well publicized and were expressly
accepted the complainant before the auction was conducted.
- The plot has been sold on 'as is where is basis'. Therefore, Respondent is in a position
to hand over possession of the auctioned plot soon as full payment is made; and
Respondent No.1 need and cannot afford to wait for the sale consideration until
completion of development works.
- It would be unfair on the of Respondent No.1 to deviate from the pre-announced
terms and conditions of auction as any such deviation may detrimental to the rights of
other persons who participated in auction.
REASONING
- the project in question "METRO ENCLAVE, registered with RERA
- That being so, all the provisions of the Act, section 13 including which apply to any
advertisement, promotion, booking, offer sale, or sale of any plots in a registered
project would apply to the project at hand.
- The said project was registered by RERA will clear commitment on the part of
Respondent No.1 that it abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules regulations
made thereunder.
- Even a draft agreement submitted as part of the application for registration The
auction has been conducted by announcing that the project in question a project
registered with RERA and thereby informing a promising to the potential buyers that
the provisions of the and the rules and regulations made thereunder would apply this
project and determine their relationship with Respondent No'1 in respect of any plot
purchased at the auction.
- section 13 (1) of the Act provides for an agreement for to be executed and registered
before the promoter accepts amount exceeding 10 per cent of the total cost of the plot.
This a mandatory requirement of the Act and cannot be dispensed compromised with.

JUDGMENT
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

- Respondent No.1 shall execute an agreement for salewith the complainant and get it
registered before demanding o accepting any further amount beyond the 15 percent of
the amount.
- Once the agreement for sale is registered then the complainant shall pay the said
amount within 3 days.

B. KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD. VS. ANIL V THARTHARE & ORS.,

MANU/SC/1659/2019
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that fresh environmental clearance
certificate shall be taken if the project has expanded beyond the limits for which the prior EC
was obtained. if the expansion is within the upper limit prescribed in the EIA Notification
then also fresh certificate shall be obtained.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant is the project proponent of a residential redevelopment, called „Oriana
Residential Project‟. The appellant received a Commencement Certificate to carry out the
development and erect a building situated at the project property. The appellant began
construction. When the construction commenced, the total construction area was 8,720.32
square metres. The ambit of the project was expanded, and the constructed area was increased
to 32,395.17 square metres. Under the EIA Notification, an Environmental Clearance4 was
necessary if the total construction area exceeded 20,000 square metres. Hence, the appellant
applied for an EC and he received it.
The appellant informed the Environment Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the
second respondent, that the construction area was being further increased by 8,085.71 square
metres, as a result of which the total construction area of the project would stand enhanced to
40,480.88 square metres. In its letter, the appellant sought an „amendment‟ to the EC dated 2
May 2013 by the third respondent to reflect the increase in the total construction area. On 13
March 2014, the third respondent granted an „amendment‟ to the EC dated 2 May 2013 on
the ground that there was only a “marginal increase in built up and construction area”. This
was challenged by the respondent wherein the NGT imposed a fine of 1 crore rupees and set
up an expert panel to study the environmental impact as the appellant had already constructed
15 apartment flats in that area.
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

ISSUES INVOLVED
a. Whether a fresh EC should be taken in case the upper limit of the threshold does not
cross?
b. Whether EC was appropriately taken?
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- Pursuant to the first increase, when the appellant‟s project crossed the 20,000 square
metre threshold provided for in the EIA Notification, the appellant submitted a Form
1 and was granted a valid EC dated 2 May 2013 by the third respondent;
- Pursuant to the second increase, the built up area of the appellant‟s project only
marginally increased by 8,085.71 square metres to a total construction area of
40,480.88 square metres, which is within the upper limit of 1,50,000 square metres
prescribed by entry 8(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification. Therefore, the
second increase was not an “expansion” within the meaning of clause (ii) of
paragraph 2 of the EIA Notification and no fresh Form 1 or EC was required at the
time of the second increase;
- The NGT had no basis to impose the fine of Rupees one crore on the appellant.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- Under clause (ii) of paragraph 2 read with paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification, any
expansion beyond the “threshold limit” requires a fresh EC.
- The appellant‟s project had crossed the threshold limit of 20,000 square metres and
the second increase of 8,085.71 square metres constituted an „expansion beyond the
threshold limit‟ and hence required a fresh EC;
- Once a project breaches the lower threshold limit set out in the Schedule to the EIA
Notification, any expansion or modernisation, even within the upper threshold set out
in the Schedule, will require the submission of a fresh Form 1 and the matter to be
placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, as applicable in
accordance with paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification;
- Adopting the appellant‟s interpretation of clause (ii) of paragraph 2 would defeat the
object and purpose of the EIA Notification as a whole. It would allow project
proponents to incrementally increase
the construction area and over time significantly impinge on the environmental
impact of the project without seeking a fresh EC;
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

REASONING OF THE COURT

- The central controversy between the parties to the present dispute is the manner in
which paragraphs 2 and 7 of the EIA Notification should be interpreted. Clause (ii) of
paragraph 2 of the EIA Notification stipulates that a project proponent shall require an
EC prior to the start of construction in the case of an “expansion”. Clause (ii) uses the
phrase “expansion…beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector”.
- A plain reading of the second half of clause (ii) would indicate that it applies to cases
where a project was initially below the threshold limits stipulated in the Schedule but
after the proposed expansion, would breach the threshold limits.
- However, clause (ii) of paragraph 2 must be read with paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA
Notification. Paragraph 7(ii) lays down the exact procedure to be followed by a
project proponent in the case of an expansion. Two crucial points must be noted with
respect to paragraph 7(ii). First, it uses the phrase, “expansion with increase in
production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environment clearance has
been granted”. Second, the qualifying language referring to breaching the threshold
limits “after expansion” is absent. An “expansion” can occur even after the grant of an
EC when the project first crossed the lower limit stipulated in the threshold and it is
not necessary for the project to breach the upper limit after the expansion.
- Therefore, a close reading of paragraph 7(ii) would support the interpretation put forth
by the first respondent – that even after obtaining an EC if the project is expanded
beyond the limits for which the prior EC was obtained, a fresh application would need
to be made even if the expansion is within upper the limit prescribed in the Schedule.
- The dangers effectively articulated by the learned counsel for the first respondent are
real.If the appellant‟s argument is accepted in totality, a project proponent could
potentially secure an EC for constructing 20,000 square metres and by „amendment‟
steadily increase the area of construction up to 1,50,000 square metres without
submitting an updated Form 1 or any substantive review by the SEAC.
- In a case where the text of the provisions requires interpretation, this Court must
adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the object and purpose of the
legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The EIA Notification was adopted with
the intention of restricting new projects and the expansion of new projects until their
environmental impact could be evaluated and understood. It cannot be disputed that as
 TUPAKULA NIKHIL

the size of the project increases, so does the magnitude of the project‟s environmental
impact.
JUDGMENT
- As on the date of the impugned order construction at the project site had already been
completed. A core tenet underlying the entire scheme of the EIA Notification is that
construction should not be executed until ample scientific evidence has been compiled
so as to understand the true environmental impact of a project.By completing the
construction of the project, the appellant denied the third and fourth respondents the
ability to evaluate the environmental impact and suggest methods to mitigate any
environmental damage. At this stage, only remedial measures may be taken.
- The NGT has already directed the appellant to deposit Rupees one crore and has set
up an expert committee to evaluate the impact of the appellant‟s project and suggest
remedial measures. In view of these circumstances, we uphold the directions of the
NGT and direct that the committee continue its evaluation of the appellant‟s project
so as to bring its environmental impact as close as possible to that contemplated in the
EC dated 2 May 2013 and also suggest the compensatory exaction to be imposed on
the appellant.