TPCL Is An Authority Under Article 226 And Thus Writ Jurisdiction Is Amendable: Surendra Kumar Sahoo Vs State Of Odisha

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
24/01/2022

BENCH:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

PARTIES:
PETITIONER – Mr. SURENDRA KUMAR SAHOO
RESPONDENT: STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

SUBJECT

The Odisha High Court ruled on 24/01/2022 that the Tata Power Company Limited ("TPCL") must be considered as an entity in power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

OVERVIEW

1. A series of writ petitions were submitted against various electrical supply corporations in the same matter, and the present appeal was submitted to determine the maintainability of all these applications.
2. Originally, the distribution of power, involving production, management, and transmission, was handled by the Odisha State Electricity Board, a state-owned enterprise that was entirely controlled by government.
3. Following that, the State Government, in execution of the powers provided by the Odisha Electrical Reforms Act, 1955, and then after consulting with the Grid Corporation of Odisha Limited, enacted the transfer program guidelines with the goal of reorganizing the electricity sector.
4. The Odisha Electricity Reform Rules, 1998was established to bring clarity to the planning and execution of a programme for the transition of distribution operations of the Grid Corporation of Odisha Limited to distribution businesses.
5. In order to provide electricity, the entire region of Odisha was split into 4 distribution regions and four distribution firms, called WESCO, NESCO, CESCO, and SOUTHCO. These firms were established in accordance with the Rules of 1998 and were tasked with utilizing Central and State Government support while implementing such projects.

LEGAL PROVISION

Article 12, Article 226, Odisha Electrical Reforms Act, Indian Companies act

ISSUES

Whether electricity distribution firms that discharge public duty will be amendable under the writ Jurisdiction?

JUDGEMENT

1. The Court pointed out that the term 'State' is not established under Article 12. The Court then stated thatit encompassed many other authorities inside India's boundaries or under the authority of the Indian government.
2. The court then stated that nothing was stated that few other authorities apart from what is controlled by the state must be controlled by the Indian government.
3. It was also pointed out that this did not indicate that every entity or organisation whose personal operations are controlled is known to be a ‘State’.
4. It was also stated that what is important is the degree and type of duties discharged by the institution, as well as the State ownership that flows from them.
5. The idea that almost all public sector commitments were encapsulated under the Indian Companies Act, Societies Registration Act, or other Acts for the purpose of explaining the summary of 'State' and ordered to be funded by that of the Central/State Government and be under its deep and widespread regulation has changed dramatically over the last 3 decades.
6. It was stated that the four distribution businesses were responsible for collecting electricity tax, a government income stream, as well as energy fees from consumers. As a result, the Court ruled that the writ petitions against these electrical distribution firms were maintainable.

CONCLUSION

The Court ruled that, TPCL, despite being a firm, has been involved in the distribution of power in four distribution zones of the state under various identities. It was also mentioned that the state controls its administration through GRIDCO (Grid Corporation of Odisha). Additionally, the Court determined that many power distribution firms perform activities that were like public duties and thus qualified as "authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement