NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED v. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.

provisions for the smooth operation of the Act and the Rules arislrig·in implementing the transfers· under these which'have to be brought into effect by passing orders which rules." 1 '.; are required tO be published in the Official Gazette and such I ,; . orders would th.en be given effect by making provisions which 41. It must be said that the powers under sub-Rule (1) ·and B · are not inconsistent with the Act: It is for such kind of orders . (2) are of different kinds. The finality of the Government decision that the Rules apply. Whatis referred to In the aforementioned is writ large from the provisions of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12, while decision: is in pursuance of the power of the Government to · under the provisions of sub-Rule (2), the Government has the make rules under Section 60 pertaining to Section 15 and 16 power to make provisions by order published in the Official of the Act. 1.t was tried to be argued that even if Section 60 was Gazette. Therefore, in our opinion, the position taken by the c referred to in the aforementioned order, such rules had to be Government in the letter dated 21.01.2004 is clear and notified. . doubtless. I c .40. It is then argued)hat Section 60 does not empower 42. One feeble argument was made thatthe Government rule making .bY a letter. It .was also suggested that. the letter had already exhausted its power unde-r Rule.12 (1) while taking dated 21.01.2004, the purpose of which was ,mentioned as the decision dated 17.09.2002 and, hence, it had lost the power D 'removal of doubts' which could not only be done by Section to pass any fresh orders. The ·argument is _clearly incorrect. 15 of the Act arid, therefore, that was not question of the letter There can be no finality in the matter of removal do'ubts or the bein'g effective, particularly, because it has been passed after removal difficulties and also taking the decisions. under Rule twq. year~ ,of the relevant date and would clearly be hit by 12(1). The argument that once the Government has exercised provision of Section 57 which does not empower any rules to the powers under Rule 12(1), the power gets exhausted and be made after two. years of the ·date of transfer. Learned Senior I . ''• · • . ' / , ·· , the decision becomes final and binding on all the parties, Counsel, therefore, very heavily relied on this Section, which including the Government, is clearly incorrect. The argument that E argument, in our opinion is incorrect. There is a clear reference there is no further power under Rule in the' Gov7r~ment to issue made to,. ,..Rule 12 which runs - ' as under: \. any letter dated 21.01.2004, is also an incorrect argument. In our opinion, nothing stopped the Government from taking any · . 12. Decision of'- Government-Final: F .

If any doubt, dispute, difference or issue arise 'in regard to )he transfers under these rules, subject ~hall decision and it has taken a clearest possible;decision by letter dated 21.01.2004 which is binding on all the parties. This is · F apart from the fact that the Government has not dealt with the subject in its earlier decision dated 17.09.2002 as regards the 10 the provisions of the Act, the decision of the controversy which has fallen for consideration in this matter. It · .. , , government thereon, shall be, final and binding on G au parties. was in, respect of other liabilities which were covered by Schedules 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G'. We have already clarified that G

: ) (2) : ' The government may by order published in the Official Gazette,. make such provisions, not · . incons;stent with .the provisions ()f the Act, as may -.... those liabilities were different from the liabilities which arose on account of the employees who could not_become the employees of the DISCO MS on the date onransfer due to their H ,.. appear to be necessa,.Y for removing the difficulties retirement, dismissal, death etc. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Delhi High Court is the correct view. We have H

. I ' ' 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. / . NORTH DELHI POWER)LIMITED v. GOVT. OF NCT &1079 ORS.·[V,S. SIRPURKAR, J.] A Government to remove dciubts. It is the power to make /I f -

provisions for the smooth operation of the Act and the Rules arislrig·in implementing the transfers· under these which'have to be brought into effect by passing orders which rules." 1 '.; are required tO be published in the Official Gazette and such I ,; . orders would th.en be given effect by making provisions which 41. It must be said that the powers under sub-Rule (1) ·and B · are not inconsistent with the Act: It is for such kind of orders . (2) are of different kinds. The finality of the Government decision that the Rules apply. Whatis referred to In the aforementioned is writ large from the provisions of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12, while decision: is in pursuance of the power of the Government to · under the provisions of sub-Rule (2), the Government has the make rules under Section 60 pertaining to Section 15 and 16 power to make provisions by order published in the Official of the Act. 1.t was tried to be argued that even if Section 60 was Gazette. Therefore, in our opinion, the position taken by the c referred to in the aforementioned order, such rules had to be Government in the letter dated 21.01.2004 is clear and notified. . doubtless. I c .40. It is then argued)hat Section 60 does not empower 42. One feeble argument was made thatthe Government rule making .bY a letter. It .was also suggested that. the letter had already exhausted its power unde-r Rule.12 (1) while taking dated 21.01.2004, the purpose of which was ,mentioned as the decision dated 17.09.2002 and, hence, it had lost the power D 'removal of doubts' which could not only be done by Section to pass any fresh orders. The ·argument is _clearly incorrect. 15 of the Act arid, therefore, that was not question of the letter There can be no finality in the matter of removal do'ubts or the bein'g effective, particularly, because it has been passed after removal difficulties and also taking the decisions. under Rule twq. year~ ,of the relevant date and would clearly be hit by 12(1). The argument that once the Government has exercised provision of Section 57 which does not empower any rules to the powers under Rule 12(1), the power gets exhausted and be made after two. years of the ·date of transfer. Learned Senior I . ''• · • . ' / , ·· , the decision becomes final and binding on all the parties, Counsel, therefore, very heavily relied on this Section, which including the Government, is clearly incorrect. The argument that E argument, in our opinion is incorrect. There is a clear reference there is no further power under Rule in the' Gov7r~ment to issue made to,. ,..Rule 12 which runs - ' as under: \. any letter dated 21.01.2004, is also an incorrect argument. In our opinion, nothing stopped the Government from taking any · . 12. Decision of'- Government-Final: F .

If any doubt, dispute, difference or issue arise 'in regard to )he transfers under these rules, subject ~hall decision and it has taken a clearest possible;decision by letter dated 21.01.2004 which is binding on all the parties. This is · F apart from the fact that the Government has not dealt with the subject in its earlier decision dated 17.09.2002 as regards the 10 the provisions of the Act, the decision of the controversy which has fallen for consideration in this matter. It · .. , , government thereon, shall be, final and binding on G au parties. was in, respect of other liabilities which were covered by Schedules 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G'. We have already clarified that G

: ) (2) : ' The government may by order published in the Official Gazette,. make such provisions, not · . incons;stent with .the provisions ()f the Act, as may -.... those liabilities were different from the liabilities which arose on account of the employees who could not_become the employees of the DISCO MS on the date onransfer due to their H ,.. appear to be necessa,.Y for removing the difficulties retirement, dismissal, death etc. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Delhi High Court is the correct view. We have H

--// 1080 SUPREME·COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. • [2010J '5 S.C.R. 1081

A already clarified about the so-called Offic~ Order dated M/S M.R.F. LTD: ETC. A 30.09.2_0~_2which is overridden by the final decision taken by v. the Governme.nt in its letter dated 21.01.2004. . · MANOHAR PARRIKAR AND ORS. I -- 43: On the overail consideration, we are of the clear (Civi!Appeal No. 4220 of 2002 etc.) B opinion, that these appeals do not have any merits and must MAY 3, 2010 B be dismissed. There shall be· no order as to costs. · : .. ; [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] · B.B.B. Appeals dismissed. ( Rules of Business of the Government of Goa:

rr. 3, 6, 7 and 9 - Decision taken by Minister of Power c allowing rebate in electricity tariff- Matter notreferred to Chief I Minister or the· Council of Ministers - Nor wa_s_ the concurrence of Finance Department taken - HELD: Such a decision cannot be said. to be the deCision 'of the Government - 1 Notifications giving effect to such· decisions without complying D I with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution,· are non-est and void ab initio .:.. High Court has ·.. ,. rightly held the Rules of Business as mandatory - In the \ instant case, there is sufficient doubt with regard to the conduct of the Minister of Power in issuing the_ notifications - E therefore, suspicion of irregularity renders- the doctrine of .-·. ( indoor management inapplicable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 154 and 166 - Doctrine of indoor Management - / Public Interest Litigation. ··--- - - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: · F ·• s.11, 0.2, r.2 - Res judicata - Withdrawal of electri_city tariff rebate granted as per Notifications challenged in writ· petitions - Upheld by High Court - But writ petitioners held entitled to the rebate for the periods indicated in the judgment G - SLPs dismissed- Subsequent writ petition irrpublic interest filed challenging validity and legality of the Notifications - HELD: In the earlier litigation, issue of validity or legality of the Notifications was never raised, nor the writ petitioner in the H 1081