Principle Of Res Judicata Applies Even To Petitions Arising For Decision In Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: SC
The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals of companies against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, declining to grant the relief of 25% rebate on the electricity tariff.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of Res Judicata applies even to Petitions arising for decision in the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the companies against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench by which it declined to grant the relief of rebate of 25% on the electricity tariff.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is now well settled that the principle of res judicata applies even to petitions arising for decision in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If any authority is required one may profitably refer to the decision in T.P. Moideen Koya v. State of Kerala.”
Senior Advocate Santosh Paul appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Advocate (Standing Counsel) Abhay Anil Anturkar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
In the lead Appeal, vide notification, the Goa State determined tariff applicable to electricity bills issued from July 1, 1988. Thereafter, vide notification issued under Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the State determined tariff whereby industrial units which applied for availing High-Tension or Low-Tension power supply for bona fide industrial activities were held entitled to a rebate of 25% on the tariff chargeable under the notification for a period of 5 years from the date on which the electricity supply was made available. The Appellants-companies then applied for power from the State and entered into respective power supply agreements. In 1995, vide notification issued under Section 23 read with Section 51-A of the 1910 Act as well as Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the previous notification was rescinded and in terms thereof, the scheme of rebate was stopped and any new industrial unit applying for power after March 31, 1995 would not get the benefit of the 1991 notification.
In 1996, the notification was amended to include another consumer category of “Extra High-Tension”. The notification was once again amended in 1996 so as to extend the benefit of rebate to all the industrial units who apply or avail extra high-tension power supply. The rebate of 25% was given on the prevailing tariff in force. Power began to be supplied to the Appellants, however, the 25% rebate was given only from January 1, 1997. The accumulated arrears of rebate were sought to be disbursed in 60 equated monthly instalments. Vide circular, the State suspended the rebate entitlement and hence, Writ Petitions were filed challenging the said circular before the High Court. The High Court held the 1998 notification to be legal and concluded that the companies were entitled to 25% rebate till July 24, 1998. Vide demand notice in 2011, the Respondents sought recover from the Appellants and being aggrieved, they approached the High Court. As the Division Bench dismissed their Writ Petition, they were before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In the instant case, we are convinced that the writ petitions before the High Court were hit by res judicata in view of its previous decision in GR Ispat (supra) which, when challenged before this Court, was upheld with the further observation that a balanced view of the matter had been taken and no interference was called for.”
The Court said that the public interest is what turns the tide against the Appellants-companies. It added that the High Court was right in holding that the Appellants before it are not entitled to the rebate and the impugned demand notices do not suffer from any vice including that of illegality.
“The SoG before the High Court in GR Ispat (supra) had specifically taken the stand that the policy of rebate was unviable resulting from financial crunch and was overriding public interest. This, the High Court accepted, unlike in the case of Pawan Alloys (supra). This too would apply as res judicata against the appellant-companies”, it also observed.
The Court further noted that as per Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), no Appeal lies against an Order of rejection of a Petition for review and hence, the Civil Appeals in this behalf are misconceived.
“We are, thus, in agreement with the High Court in its determination that the document does not in any way advance the case of the appellant-companies”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.
Cause Title- Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 217)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Santosh Paul, AORs A. Raghunath, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Advocates Vedant Mishra, and Aditi Rai.
Respondents: AORs A. Subhashini, Surbhi Kapoor, T. Mahipal, Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande, and Subhi Pastor.
