HC Pulls Up Spl Secy (Power) for flouting tariff incentive order
Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the contempt petition, observed that the respondent had attempted to 'overreach the judgment' and failed to comply with the court's specific direction to issue a notification granting industrial tariff incentives as per Clause 16(A) of the 2019 Industrial Policy.
In its earlier judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court had ordered the Department of MPP & Power to issue an enabling notification granting power tariff incentives to the petitioner, a metal-based industrial unit, from the date of its commercial production.
The department was given a four-week deadline. However, even after more than three months, no action had been taken.
The Court noted that the reply submitted by the Special Secretary claimed that retrospective revision of tariff falls under the domain of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) and not the Power Department.
Justice Sharma, however, found this argument untenable, stating that this line of reasoning had not been presented before the Division Bench earlier, where the government had instead admitted to issuing the notification.
The Court further cited the 2016 Supreme Court ruling in Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, which held that an enabling notification is a ministerial act, and where policy promises exist, the notification is deemed to have been issued.
Taking strong exception to the change in stance, Justice Sharma held that the respondent was prima facie in contempt of court. However, on the request of the Additional Advocate General, the Court granted a final one-week extension to comply with the directive.
The matter would now be listed on August 6, and the respondent has been directed to remain present in court to explain why he should not be punished for intentionally and willfully disobeying the Court's order.
This is another case in the state which highlights a broader issue of delay and bureaucratic reluctance in implementing industrial policy benefits already adjudicated by the judiciary. Earlier HC has been attached salary and vehicles of some of the state bureaucrats similarly breaching the court directions.
UNI ML RKM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
15 minutes ago
- United News of India
Himachal HC strikes down Encroachment Regularisation Law; Thousands face eviction
Shimla, Aug 5(UNI) In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications, the Himachal Pradesh High Court today struck down Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, a provision that enabled the regularisation of encroachments on government land. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, ruled the provision unconstitutional and directed the State to remove all encroachments that were to be regularised under the now-nullified section. The verdict came in response to a writ petition filed 23 years ago: Poonam Gupta vs State of Himachal Pradesh. It challenged the constitutional validity of Section 163-A. The provision, introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal, allowed the State Government to frame rules for the regularisation of encroachments on government land, ostensibly to benefit small and marginal farmers. However, the court observed that this legislative maneuver attempted to "legalise illegality" and was inherently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law. 'Equality cannot be claimed in illegality,' the court stated, adding that 'the impugned provision is in fact legislation for a class of dishonest persons.' The court emphasized that deliberate and voluntary encroachments amount to criminal trespass under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code and held that such infractions cannot be regularised. It cited earlier Supreme Court judgments which make a distinction between involuntary encroachments due to dire circumstances and deliberate, designed land grabs. The court cited government records to show that over 1.23 lakh hectares of land had been encroached upon and that 1.67 lakh applications had been received under the now-struck down regularisation scheme. This, the court noted, encouraged large-scale land grabbing, dishonesty, and complete disregard for environmental and legal safeguards. Referencing the doctrine of public trust and the constitutional duty of both citizens and the State to protect natural resources, the bench remarked:'Failure to remove encroachments and protect government land is a failure in governance. It promotes dishonesty and undermines the rule of law.' Importantly, the court underscored that public resources, including forests, rivers, mountains, and lands belong to the people and must be safeguarded not just for the present, but for future generations. It invoked principles such as sustainable development and intergenerational equity, stating that orchards and private use of forest lands defeat the very purpose of ecological conservation. The judgment also dismantled the argument that Section 163-A was meant to uplift the poor and downtrodden. It noted that there are already three distinct schemes, including the HP Grant of Land to Landless Persons, designed to benefit the truly landless. The court was critical of the misuse of public sympathy to justify unauthorised land occupation and decried the misuse of 'public interest' to favour select individuals who violated the law. Moreover, the court observed glaring contradictions in the State's rationale. While the legislature attempted to enforce stricter rules against encroachments under Section 163, it simultaneously introduced Section 163-A to regularise the same. 'It is demonstratively and excessively contradictory and mutually destructive,' the judgment read. In a related context, the court highlighted its previous directions to the government, issued in PILs 17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015, to enforce strict measures against encroachments and hold revenue, forest, and public works officials accountable for inaction. Those directions are to remain in force, and all officials failing to report or act on encroachments will face disciplinary, civil, and even criminal proceedings. During the proceedings, the court was informed that the State had abandoned its 2017 proposal to bring new rules for regularisation and had no current policy to revive the struck-down law. This came after multiple stay orders in related cases were issued based on the pending draft rules. Notably, the verdict also delves into the legal critique of adverse possession, calling it an archaic and irrational doctrine. The bench said it was illogical to reward a trespasser merely for occupying land illegally for 12 years. It called upon the legislature to reconsider such laws which, in effect, legitimize dishonesty. The ruling is expected to ignite a political and legal storm in the State. With tens of thousands of applicants having admitted to encroachments by way of affidavits over the past two decades, lured by the possibility of regularization, the judgment puts them at risk of immediate eviction and penalties. The High Court, however, was clear that this is a price that must be paid to restore the rule of law and environmental balance. 'The court cannot remain a silent spectator while public land is grabbed in connivance with officials,' it said. 'This would amount to destroying democratic institutions and endorsing anarchy.' In conclusion, the court ordered the State and all competent authorities to carry out eviction proceedings as per existing laws and the timeline prescribed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), and ensure fencing, removal of illegal structures, and restoration of forest cover wherever necessary. UNI ML AAB
United News of India
44 minutes ago
- United News of India
US supplied arms to Pak worth 2 Bn Dollars between 1954–1971: Indian Army Post
New Delhi, Aug 5 (UNI) The United States supplied arms and ammunition worth 2 billion Dollars to Pakistan between 1954 and 1971, according to a social media post by the Eastern Command of the Indian Army. The Eastern Command, tagged a 1971 newspaper clipping of '05 Aug 1971' headlined 'US Arms Worth $ 2 Billion Shipped to Pakistan Since 1954.' The post given exactly 54 years ago, said "This Day That Year" Build Up of War - 05 Aug 1971 #KnowFacts.' According to the post shared under the tag #KnowFacts, on Aug 4, 1971, the then Minister for Defence Production VC Shukla had informed the Rajya Sabha, "Our estimate" of the value of US arms shipments to Pakistan since they entered into arms pact in 1954 was $2 billion". He noted that both the United States and China had supplied military equipment to Pakistan at highly concessional rates, even describing them as 'throw-away prices' while the French sold them against hard cash "with no concessions". He further said that while there was no precise information on the arms supplied to Pakistan after March 26 (when it cracked down on Bangladesh) available, Shukla, however, said "China had supplied "large quantities" of Non-lethal items". UNI RBE RB 1445
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
Mohit Kamboj at helm as Aspect Group CEO
Mumbai, Aug 5 (UNI) Aspect Global Ventures has appointed seasoned entrepreneur Mohit Kamboj as Group Chief Executive Officer to lead its next growth phase. The diversified conglomerate announced Kamboj will oversee all business verticals including bullion, real estate, sports, venture capital, hospitality, infrastructure, energy, entertainment, and social impact initiatives. With over 20 years' experience across finance, trade, and policy advocacy, Kamboj's appointment comes during Aspect's global expansion into Dubai, Singapore, US and UK markets. Executive Chairperson Aksha Kamboj stated: "His sector expertise will align our businesses with the group's value-creation objectives." In response, Kamboj acknowledged the leadership foundation laid by Aksha Kamboj, pledging to "explore global opportunities through technology and collaborative growth." The conglomerate currently operates Aspect Bullion - a market leader in precious metals - alongside hospitality brands including Mumbai establishments Brunch & Cake, OPA Kipos, and Nom Nom. Its infrastructure division encompasses Ecomix, Aspect Logistics and Aspect PMC, while Aspect Realty handles commercial and residential properties. The group's sports vertical notably participates in the Indian Street Premier League. Aspect maintains offices across four international locations alongside its Indian operations. UNI AAA PRS
