Ushakiron Movies Limited Rep B Its Representative Sri K. Ravinder Rao vs. Union Of India And Ors Ministry Of Energy Secretary

ITEM NO.102

COURT NO.4

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 5172/2007

STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ORS.

Appellant(s) $A$

VERSUS

A.C.C. LTD. & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 23/2011 FOR [I.A FOR C/D IN FILING AFFIDAVIT] ON IA 18-21/2010 FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF ON IA 17/2014 FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 26/2014)

• C.A. No. 5291/2007
• SLP (C) No. 17748/2007
• SLP (C) No. 18740/2007
• SLP (C) NO. 18794/2007
• C.A. No. $5180/2007$
• C.A. No. 5177/2007
• SLP (C) NO. 20310/2007
• SLP (C) No. 21532/2007
• SLP (C) No. 22203/2007
• SLP (C) No. 22433-22438/2007
• SLP (C) No. 23442/2007
• SLP (C) No. 25548/2007
• SLP (C) NO. 23317/2007
• SLP (C) No. 4994/2008
• SLP (C) NO. 3094/2008
• SLP (C) No. 1797/2008

$\frac{18.17 \text{S}}{ \text{Reass}}$ (C) NO. 27183/2008

C.A. No. $4590/2009$

C.A. No. 1531/2011
Date : 08-03-2018	These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
For Appellant(s)	Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.
Chhattisgarh	Dr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
	Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
	Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
	Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
	Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
	M/S.<br>Khaitan & Co.
	Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Siddhi Padia, Adv.
	Mr. Santosh Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.
	Ms. Arti, Adv.
	Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Adv.
	Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
	Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
	Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
	Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv.
	Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.
	Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
	Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR
	Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR
	Mr. Ashok Grover, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR
	Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv.
	Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Amit A. Pai, Adv.
	Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv.
	Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
	Ms. Sonali Suryavanshi, Adv.
	Mr. Arvind Minocha, AOR
	Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. U.A. Rana, Adv.

	Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv.<br>For M/S. Gagrat And Co.
	Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR
	Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Adv.<br>Ms Preeti Khewani, Adv.<br>Mr. B.R. Menon, Adv.<br>Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR
For Respondent(s)	Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.<br>Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv.<br>Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR<br>Ms. Fereshte D. Sethna, Adv.<br>Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Adv.
R1	Mr. A.P. Dattar, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. U.A. Rana, Adv.<br>Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv.<br>For M/S. Gagrat And Co.
	Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
	Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
	Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR<br>Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv.<br>Ms. Aliya D., Adv.<br>Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.<br>Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.<br>Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv.<br>Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv.<br>Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
	Mr. Kunal Dutt, Adv.
	Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv.<br>Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR<br>Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.<br>Ms. R. Mekhala, Adv.
	Mr. C. G. Solshe, AOR
	Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR

3

Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR R 10 Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Shivanshu Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Ms. Prachi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Suneet Padhi, Adv. Ms. Pragya Garg, Adv. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

During the course of arguments, it transpired that the submissions made by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh are in contradiction to the submissions made on affidavit in the High Court and also perhaps in the petition for special leave to appeal filed in this Court.

In view of the apparent contradiction, we would like an

4

affidavit to be filed by the State of Chhattisgarh by a responsible officer clarifying its stand with regard to levy of Energy Development Cess on independent power producers as well as captive power producers.

There also seems to be some dispute whether any independent power producers were in existence prior to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. This should also be clarified and categorically stated in the affidavit. According to learned counsel for the respondents, there was at least one independent power producer in existence.

A specific affidavit should be filed by the State of Chhattisgarh indicating whether prior to the impugned judgment and order any independent power producer existed or not. In any case, after the delivery of the impugned judgment and order, there is no dispute that there are in existence independent power producers. The affidavit should state whether any Energy Development Cess is levied on these independent power producers before and/or after the delivery of impugned judgment and order by the High Court.

List the matter on 13.03.2018 (Tuesday) as part-heard matters.

(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (KAILASH CHANDER) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER