CENTER OF INDIAN TRADE UNION, A FEDERATION OF REGISTERED TRADE UNIONS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Case number: SLP(C) No.-007734-007734 / 1997
Diary number: 5722 / 1997
Advocates: KAMINI JAISWAL Vs
NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7734 OF 1997
CENTER OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS, A FEDERATION OF REGISTERED TRADE UNIONS …PETITIONER(S)
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner had challenged the execution of the Power
Project Agreement (PPA) and the modified power project
agreements first of which was executed in the year 1993 by the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short ‘the MSEB’) in
favour of Dabhol Power Corporation Limited (for short ‘DPC’)
before the Bombay High Court.
2. Though the High Court came to the conclusion that the
action of the Board and the Governments concerned was
1
questionable and that everything was not above board, it
dismissed the writ petition(s) on the ground that the petitioner
had not been able to place on record before the Court any
material justifying the allegations as regards corruption, bribery,
fraud and misrepresentation.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition. On
02.05.1997, this Court issued notice only on the following issue:
“(2) The accountability of the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 2) in this matter, particularly, on account of the inconsistent stand taken by it from time to time.”
4. By the same order, this Court refused leave in so far as the
question of the validity of the project and contract for Dabhol
Power Project was.
5. While the special leave petition was pending, the State of
Maharashtra appointed a Committee headed by Dr. Mahdav
Godbole, former Home Secretary (known as ‘Godbole Committee’)
to go into the matter.
2
6. The Godbole Committee submitted its report to the State of
Maharashtra on 10th April, 2001 indicating serious
illegalities/infirmities in the matter of award of the contract and
processing of approvals, which were prima facie against public
interest. Failure of governance, it was observed, was broad and
across different governments and at both administrative and
political levels. However, there was difference of opinion amongst
members of the Godbole Committee, whether it should
recommend appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry
under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. Whereas 2 members
felt that that a Judicial Commission of Inquiry should be
constituted, 3 members did not agree with the said proposal.
7. On 7th November, 2001, Shri Justice S. P. Kurdukar, a
former Judge, was appointed for thorough investigation into the
aspects of culpability of various public servants.
8. The Union of India filed a suit before this Court (Original
Suit No.2 of 2003 – Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr.) and an order was passed in the said suit staying further
proceedings of the Kurdukar commission of inquiry. This suit
3
came to be finally dismissed in the year 2014. Thereafter, the
matter came up before this Court on 18.02.2015 when learned
counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra prayed for some
time to find out whether Justice Kurdukar would be in a position
to resume the proceedings. No response has been filed. The fact
remains that the Commission has not functioned even after
dismissal of the suit.
9. It appears that nothing much was done and the matter
came up before this Court on 07.03.2018 when this Court
directed the State of Maharashtra to inform the Court whether it
would like the Kurdukar Commission of inquiry to continue or
would they like the case to be argued on merits. The State of
Maharashtra subsequently filed an affidavit that due to long
efflux of time it was no longer useful or feasible to continue with
the judicial commission of inquiry.
10. Therefore, the hearing in this case is limited to the question
as to whether the judicial commission of inquiry should continue
or not.
4
11. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing as
amicus curiae, urged that in view of the serious allegations of
corruption and abdication of duties by various authorities and
officials, it would be in the interest of justice to continue with the
commission of inquiry and in case Justice Kurdukar was not able
to continue with the commission of inquiry, the same could be
headed by some other retired Judge of the Supreme Court of
India.
12. Dr. Dhawan drew our attention to the various portions of
the report submitted by Dr. Godbole committee. We may make
reference only to following portion:
“The Committee is troubled with the failure of governance that seems to have characterised almost every step of the decision making process on matters relating to DPC. This failure of governance has been broad, across different governments at different points of time, at both the State and the Central level, and across different agencies associated with examining the project, and at both the administrative and political levels. It strains belief to accept that such widespread and consistent failure to execute assigned responsibilities is purely coincidental. Though the Committee was given certain additional terms of reference, specifically, item (3) of Resolution No. PSP 2001/CR3448/NRG2 dated March 9, 2001, it has unanimously decided that it is not the proper forum to investigate such matters to the degree that would be required. The Committee,
5
in the short time allocated to it, is unable to determine reasons for the consistent lapses, but is extremely concerned at it.”
13. The Committee has found serious infirmities in the manner
in which the PPA was executed, the manner in which it was re
negotiated, the manner in which the tariff was fixed etc.. As per
the Committee, everything was done in a manner which helped
DPC and caused loss to the MSEB and the public at large.
14. It would be pertinent to mention that the foreign company
Enron, which was involved, has abandoned the project. The
project is virtually working at half the capacity and the rate of
production of electricity is so high that the project has become
economically unviable. In these circumstances, Dr. Dhawan
urged that this Court should continue with the commission of
inquiry.
15. We are of the considered view that though normally in such
a case a judicial inquiry should have been conducted but as far
as the present case is concerned, more than a quarter of century
has elapsed since the first PPA was executed. The foreign
corporation and the original project proponents are no longer
6
available. Most of the senior officials would have retired and
virtually no action can be taken against them. Furthermore, the
commission of inquiry even if continued or constituted afresh,
will take its own time and, as opined by 3 Members of the
Godbole Committee, the constitution of such commission of
inquiry would serve no useful purpose. This was the stand in the
year 2001 and has greater force 18 years later.
16. In view of the long delay and in view of the fact that due to
nonavailability of many persons involved, no useful purpose
would be served in continuing with the judicial commission of
inquiry, we close the petition in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
……………………..CJI. (Ranjan Gogoi)
…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)
…………………………J. (Sanjiv Khanna)
New Delhi April 11, 2019
7