By adverting to the facts of the case, we have held that Respondent No.1 is estopped from doing so because the Appellant, in all its communications, had sought for an amount of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges i.e., consideration for diversion of water for industrial use, which was earlier reserved for irrigational purposes.
The usage of water for industrial purposes is seen as loss of water for irrigation, and in order to compensate for the same, the said charge is levied and collected by the Appellant. On 21.02.2004, the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra came up with a circular wherein it was prescribed that when water is diverted for non-irrigation purposes, then the entity using such water shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000 per hectare as irrigation restoration charges. On 25.07.2008, the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation granted final approval for the usage of water by SPCL’s thermal power plant, subject to SPCL paying a sum of Rs.549.98 Crores comprising of Rs.317.8 Crores as capital costs and Rs.232.18 Crores as irrigation restoration charge. Notably, on 01.03.2009, the Water Resources Department of the Government of Maharashtra increased the irrigation restoration charges from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000 per hectare. A similar letter was again sent by Respondent No.1 to the Appellant on 01.06.2011, whereby in addition to the aforesaid request, Respondent No.1 also asked for an extension to enter into an agreement.
Since Respondent No.1 did not receive any reply on the request concerning waiver/reduction of the irrigation restoration cost, it sent a fresh communication on 10.05.2012 seeking reduction of the said charge and also seeking permission to pay the same in 5 equal instalments. By its order dated 22.11.2012, a division bench of the Bombay High Court refused to quash the communications on the ground that the Respondent No.1 had accepted its liability to pay irrigation restoration charge at the rate of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare by signing the agreement dated 22.05.2012. In compliance of the order passed by the High Court, the Water Resources Department of the State of Maharashtra considered the request of Respondent No.1 for reduction of the irrigation restoration charge, and through its order dated 29.01.2013, rejected the said request.
Shri Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 contended that – (i) it is the rate prevailing on the date of grant of in-principle approval by the high-powered committee which would govern Respondent No.1.
The irrigation restoration charge is directly linked to the date of approval/sanction, and on the relevant date, since the circular dated 21.02.2004 was applicable, the Appellant could have only levied Rs.50,000 per hectare as irrigation restoration charges; (ii) a few similarly placed companies were given the relief which Respondent No.1 was seeking; (iii) the undertaking given by Respondent No.1 after signing the agreement was not an unconditional one.
Therefore, we are of the view that signing the agreement and issuing an undertaking would estop Respondent No.1 from challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges. A Central Government undertaking was given an exemption since the power produced by the said company was to be used for public benefit. They were countered by the State by contending that there existed an agreement between the parties which stipulated a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges, and pursuant to this agreement, Respondent No.1 had even issued an undertaking.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/conviction-and-sentencing-analysis-in-a-criminal-appeal-case/
However, since a representation had been submitted to the Government for charging of irrigation restoration charges at the rate of 50,000/- per hectare instead of Rs.1 lakh per hectare, the Petitioners stated as follows: “Without prejudice to IPL’s right made in the representation which is pending with the State Government, it is confirmed that IPL will be willing to execute the agreement before 31st May 2012 on the conditions mentioned at 2 a) & 2 b) above.
1 lakh per hectare to Government together with interest and that the decision of the Government on the representation dated 25 January 2011 submitted for the reduction of the irrigation restoration charges would bind the parties.
In compliance with the direction of the High Court, the Government considered the matter and it rejected the representation on 29.01.2013.
Therefore, we direct that the balance amount due and payable towards irrigation restoration charge shall pe paid by Respondent No.1 on or before 30.06.2023.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/legal-analysis-of-circumstantial-evidence-in-a-murder-case/
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Case Title: THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Vs. RATTAN INDIA POWER LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR (2023 INSC 33)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008550-008550 / 2022
