SANTOSH KUMAR GUHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the respondents action of leasing out of Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station at Salakathi to a private foreign qperator, M/s. Ogden Corporation, a public limited Company of New Jersy, USA. Except for the change of names of the writ petitioners both these petitions are. substantially identical in nature. The petitioner No. 1 in Civil Rule No. 972 of 1998 claims to be a social worker actively associated with different Trade Unions holding elected offices in Trade Union Organisations while petitioner No.2 is a teacher in M.E. School. He also claims to be associated with various works of development at Salakathi and President of Salakathi Development Committee which in his own showing was constituted by the people of that locality. On their own showing the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station for short, 'BTPS' ever since it was installed in the year 1976 in generating 240 MW has failed to generate power to his optimum capacity for various reasons. Petitioners have based their petitions essentially on a news item as published in the ASEB House Magazine, 'Bijulee', Annexure-3 which is reproduced below:

(2.) They have also relied on other news items as published in the local press on 12.6.97 and 11.12.97. The reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners are that the letter of understanding and the Memorandum of Agreement be quashed and the Government of Assam and Assam State Electricity Board be restrained from transferring the BTPS by issuing a Writ of Prohibition. By order dated 2.3.98, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed maintaining of status quo as regards BTPS. The order is quoted below:

(3.) The other connected petition is filed by an Association of Engineers has rightly pointed out by Mr. Hansaria, learned counsel appearing for the Board that it is adverbatim the same as Civil Rule No. 972 of 1998 except for the change of the name of the petitioners. By order dated 27.5.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, Rule was issued and it was further directed that this Civil Rule 2539 of 1998 shall be heard along with Civil Rule No. 972 of 1998 and the petitioners shall take steps for service of notice on respondent No. 4 by registered post. The record does not show any steps having been taken by the petitioner in this petition. In the meantime, the ASEB filed an application for vacating the status quo order dated 2.3.98 passed in Civil Rule No. 972 of 1998. This application has been registered as Misc. Case No. 543 of 1998. Considering the urgency and importance of the matter both these petitions were heard together. An elaborate order was passed on 29.5.98 which is selfexplanatory of the circumstances. Since, this order covers many of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions it could not be out of place to reproduce the same.