SIDDHA RAJ DHADDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has filed as a public interest litigation praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction (1) to quash the concurrence, if any, granted by the Centeral Electricity Authority to the scheme of seven projects of foreign firms for establishment of power plants without following the procedure as prescribed under the Electricity Supply Act,1948 (for short the act) (2) for quashing the guarantees, if any, given by the State Governments concerned infavour of the foreign companies sponsoring the said projects in the five States being violative of section 66 of the Act as well as being repugnant to the provision of the Constitutional; and (3) for quashing the guarantees and/orcounter guarantees if already given and also praying that the respondents States and the Union of India be prohibited from giving such guarantees in respect of Power Purchase Agreements sought to be entered into by the respective State Electricity Boards with the foreign companies and particularly in respect of loans which might be raised by Enron Power Development Corporation (Enron), a U.S. based company, either from internal or from external sources, i.e., from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank or any other bilatera; source. The petitioners also seek a direction to Union of India tappoint a penal of National and International experts to examine the counter offer dated 7 June 1994 given by the Federation of BHEL Executives Association (Respondent No. 10) to the Prime Minister of India. Yet another direction sought is that a Commission comprising of eminent persons in judicial field, technocrats, financial analyst, economists and project planning be appointed to examine the financial and technical viability and all other relevant aspects of the aforesaid seven projects having been awarded to the foreign companies. Lastly, it is prayed that the term, if any, contained in the agreements entered into with foreign companies which oust the jurisdiction of the Indian courts be quashed. In this connection reference has been drawn to the agreement with Enron, a foreign company.

(2.) There are three petitioners. First petitioner claims to be a social worker actively associated with the Sarvodaya Movement having taken part in the Indian freedom strgulle. Second petitioner is a Professor (Maths) in Allahabad University and is stated to be the national convener of an organisation called Azadi Bachao Andolan. Third petitioner is the Rajas-than Unit of an All India Organisation called 'Civil Liberties Union which is stated to having aims to promote civil liberties of the people, to secure the social, economic and political justice to all, and to fight for the withdrawal and repeal of all the repressive laws and measures. There are as many as ten respondents which includes the Union of India in the Ministries of Power, Finance and Cabinet Secretariat; the States of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu; the ninth respondent is the Centeral Electricity Authority established under the Act, and the tenth respondent is the Federation of BHEL Executive Association.

(3.) Petitioners say that they are challengingthe policies of respondents 1 to 9 which amount to abject surrender before foreign companies in power sectoir in complete violation of their constitutional and statutory obligations and duties. Then the petitioners say that they have learnt that the Central Government is stated to have received as many as 40 applications from Indian entrepreneurs and 35 from foreign investors, but that the respective Governments and Union of India, however, approved seven power projects in five States and awarded them only to the foreign investors. These projects are stated to be in the States of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.