RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed challenging a common judgment and order dated 8th November, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Reliance) has been partly allowed and, thereby, the order passed by the State of Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the 'State) in awarding Hydro Electric Power Project, Mapang Bogudiyar, in favour of the consortium of GVK Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'GVK) and Larsen & Tubro Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'L&T), has been quashed and the prayer of Reliance for quashing the order passed by the State in awarding Hydro Electric Power Project, Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol, in favour of the said consortium, has been rejected.

(2.) IN the appeal preferred by GVK, where L&T is a respondent, quashing of the order passed by the State in awarding Hydro Electric Power Project, Mapang Bogudiyar, has been challenged. In the appeal preferred by Reliance, in addition to challenging the refusal to quash the order passed by the State in awarding Hydro Electric Power Project, Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol, Reliance has challenged the refusal to issue a mandamus upon the State to award Hydro Electric Power Project, Mapang Bogudiyar, in favour of Reliance.

(3.) FACTS to which there appears to be no dispute are as follows: i. The State identified hydro power potential of about 15,000 MW. Of the said potential, generating capacities of about 1100 MW have already been established. Projects totaling a capacity of about 7900 MW are in the pipeline. In order to harness hydro power potential to the maximum and in the shortest possible time, the State came up with a policy on 19th October, 2002. The said policy envisaged private sector investment in hydro projects ranging from 0 to 100 MW. To attract private investment for development of projects of the capacity larger than 100 MW, the State announced yet another policy also on 19th October, 2002. The salient features of the said policy, for the purpose of the present appeals, are as follows: