The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has dismissed the plea difficult technique of Chandigarh Administration for privatising the electrical energy wing of the UT engineering division.
The HC was listening to the petitions filed by UT Powermen Union, Chandigarh, and Federation of Sectors Welfare Affiliation, Chandigarh.
The matter remained pending for ample time earlier than the Excessive Court docket and twice keep order granted by the Excessive Court docket was vacated by the Supreme Court docket. Lastly, the matter was heard and reserved on August 31, 2024, and pronounced on November 6, 2024.
In the meantime, the bidding technique of Chandigarh Administration continued and eminent electrical energy distribution restricted was thought-about to be the best bidder. Nevertheless, the LOI (Letter of Intent) was not issued due to the pendency of the writ petition which was pronounced Wednesday.
The petitioner, UT Powermen Union, Chandigarh, have been aggrieved by the choice to privatise the electrical energy wing by promoting 100 per cent stake of the federal government within the absence of any provision underneath Part 131 of the Electrical energy Act, 2003.
The petitioners referred to as unlawful, unconstitutional your complete motion of the respondents (UT Administration) in privatising the electrical energy wing of the engineering division, Chandigarh, and your complete course of being carried out, together with workplace memo dated June 10, 2020; the choice taken in the course of the assembly of the privatisation of the facility division/utilities held on Might 12, 2020; and the discover inviting bids and the paperwork ready in relation thereto.
The petitioners alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Part 131 of the 2003 Act which falls in Half XIII.
It was contended that earlier than discover inviting bids was issued, the switch scheme was neither finalised nor authorised which was necessary. Furthermore, the corporate, as envisaged underneath Part 131, was not in existence earlier than the bids had been invited. The Electrical energy Wing of UT, Chandigarh, is in income and 100% sale of the stakes in favour of the non-public entity isn’t acceptable. Additionally, it was argued that the staff might be adversely affected by the mentioned proposal, and that the immovable belongings of the UT Electrical energy wing have been transferred.
Counsels for UT Administration, argued that there isn’t a necessary requirement that an electrical energy provide firm have to be integrated previous to finalization of the switch scheme. Whereas referring to the objects and causes of the 2003 Act, it was contended that “for initiating the method of corporatization and subsequent privatization the loss-making electrical energy division isn’t sine qua non”. In the long run, it was contended {that a} coverage choice shouldn’t be interfered with by the Court docket in train of its energy of judicial evaluation.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, on listening to the matter clarified that “the Chandigarh Energy Distribution Firm was integrated on April 23, 2022. The immovable belongings of the Electrical energy Wing of UT Chandigarh usually are not proposed to be transferred”.
On one of many argument of the petitioners that that the Court docket can not transcend the stand taken by the respective events, the Bench mentioned that, “a Constitutional Court docket, whereas deciphering the statutory provisions, isn’t certain by the pleadings or the stand taken by the respective events. As soon as the Statute is able to its literal interpretation, the Court docket is anticipated to comply with the identical regardless of the stand taken by the events. The provisions are required to be interpreted whereas understanding their scope, intent and uninfluenced by the respective stands of the events.”
On studying of Part 131(1) of the 2003 Act, the Bench mentioned that it’s evident {that a} switch scheme shall come into impact from the date it’s printed, or such future date as could also be stipulated. Nevertheless, Part 131 (1) offers with the switch of the property and curiosity, rights and obligations of the Board within the State Authorities.
“As per Part 131(5), the switch scheme is required to incorporate the varied provisions as enlisted in Sub Part (5). Whereas deciphering a statutory provision, the court docket isn’t anticipated to attract inferences based mostly on assumptions and presumptions. Except there’s a categorical provision explicitly requiring the existence of a switch scheme earlier than the bids to establish the transferee, the court docket wouldn’t intervene”, held the HC.
The HC mentioned that the petitioners are the staff of the UT Electrical energy Division. Proviso to Part 133 of the 2003 Act itself ensures that the service circumstances of the staff shall not be any approach be much less favorable than these which might have been relevant to them if there had been no switch underneath the switch scheme.
The Bench mentioned that “the scope of judicial evaluation in a coverage choice is extraordinarily slender.”
Whereas citing a Supreme Court docket judgement in Balco Staff Union (Registered) versus Union of India and others (2002), the HC held that “it’s neither inside the area of the courts nor scope of judicial evaluation to embark upon an enquiry as as to whether a specific public coverage is suitable or whether or not higher public coverage could be developed”.
Senior Standing Counsel, Amit Jhanji, with Sumeet Jain, Extra Standing Counsel, and Himanshu Arora, Panel Counsel appeared on behalf of Chandigarh Administration, whereas Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal appeared for Eminent Electrical energy Distribution Restricted.
