2012 (10) TMI 1228 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's writ of quo warranto.
2. Compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Locus standi of the first Respondent.
4. Procedural compliance with the 1999 Rules.

Summary:
1. Validity of the High Court's writ of quo warranto:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto, which held that the Appellant had no authority to continue as Chairperson of the U.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The High Court concluded that the Selection Committee did not comply with Sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby invalidating the appointment.

2. Compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the compliance with Sub-section (5) of Section 85, which mandates that the Selection Committee must satisfy itself that the appointee has no financial or other interests likely to affect prejudicially their functions. The Selection Committee had put an asterisk against the Appellant's name, indicating that the State Government should ensure compliance with this provision. However, the Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee itself must satisfy this requirement before making any recommendation, and delegating this responsibility to the State Government was legally impermissible.

3. Locus standi of the first Respondent:
The Appellant questioned the locus standi of the first Respondent, who was the General Secretary, Jal Vidyut Unit, in filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court found sufficient locus standi for the first Respondent to move the writ petition and ruled that delay in approaching the court was not a valid ground to dismiss the petition.

4. Procedural compliance with the 1999 Rules:
The Supreme Court also examined whether the procedure laid down in the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Appointment and Conditions of Service of the Chairperson and Members) Rules, 1999, was followed. It was found that the statutory requirements were not adhered to, further invalidating the selection process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the appointment of the Appellant was in violation of Sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court emphasized that the Selection Committee must satisfy itself regarding the appointee's lack of prejudicial interests before making any recommendation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming that the Appellant had no authority to hold the post of Chairperson of the Commission.