NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said a post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal would lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this court is executory in nature and the directions of the court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments.
The apex court dismissed a plea by Adani Power seeking over Rs 1,300 crore as an outstanding late payment surcharge (LPS) from Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, a Rajasthan government-owned power distribution firm, with Rs 50,000 cost.
We are of the view that a miscellaneous application is not the proper legal course to make demand on that count. A relief of this nature cannot be asked for in a miscellaneous application which was described in the course of hearing as an application for clarification, a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said.
The bench pointed out that an important question of law has arisen as regards jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application taken out in connection with a set of statutory appeals which stood disposed of.
The bench said it is necessary to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is disposed of.
This court has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-judge bench of this court on August 31, 2020, through a course beyond that specified in the statute, the bench said.
The court said that the instant plea is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical error and neither it is for extension of time.
"Post disposal application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this court is executory in nature and the directions of the court may become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or developments. The factual background of this application does not fit into that description," the bench said.
In the facts of the case, the bench said in the contempt action instituted by the applicant, the question concerning payment of LPS was raised, but the bench of this court found that it was not the subject in question in the contempt proceedings regarding which no direction had been issued by this court.
Hence the coordinate bench decided not to address that question in the contempt proceedings, the court said.
The court noted that firms counsel expressed his desire to withdraw the present application on the last date of hearing.
"Any plaintiff would be entitled to abandon a suit or abandon part of the claim made in the suit at any time after institution of the suit, as provided in Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code. We, however, decided not to permit such simpliciter withdrawal, as the Rajasthan Discoms sought imposition of costs, the bench said.
Secondly, in our opinion, the provision which pertains to a suit would not ipso facto apply to a miscellaneous application invoking inherent powers of this Court, instituted in a set of statutory appeals which stood disposed of. Even if an applicant applies for withdrawal of an application, in exceptional cases, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the application and pass appropriate orders, the bench said.
During the hearing, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), had vehemently opposed the plea of Adani Power seeking over Rs 1,300 crore as LPS from the state discom. Senior advocate A M Singhvi represented the Adani firm.
The court had earlier pulled up its registry for not listing the case for unspecified reasons despite a judicial order to post it.
In 2020, the court had upheld the orders of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, observing that the Adani firm was entitled to compensatory tariff but not to the LPS as claimed.
The Adani firm sought payment of Rs 1376.35 crore as the LPS outstanding since June 30, 2022 in terms of the power purchase agreement.
Read Judgment
