M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusHARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

                          [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1095                             1095


     M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD. & ANR.                         A
                                   v.
   HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2019)
                            JULY 02, 2019                                  B
      [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
      Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and
Conditions for Determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy
Sources, Renewable Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy
                                                                           C
Certificate) Regulations, 2010:
       s. 4 (As amended vide Notification dated 12 August, 2015) –
Amendment to s. 4 for revision of tariff for second control period
i.e. period starting from 1.4.2013 – By Notification dated 12.8.2015
– Giving prospective effect to the amendment – Appellant No. 1
                                                                           D
(who had commenced its commercial operation on 3.5.2013), thus
was denied the applicability of tariff norms adjustments (as provided
by third proviso to unamended Regulation 4) – Writ petition
challenging the amendment was dismissed by High Court – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: High Court order is cryptic and cannot
stand the test of judicial scrutiny – Therefore, the matter is relegated   E
to High Court for consideration of the writ petition afresh.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD : 1. The High Court has committed manifest error
or so to speak, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it for
adjudicating the relevant issues raised by the appellants. For,            F
there is hardly any intelligible discussion in the impugned
judgment in that regard. It is cryptic and cannot stand the test of
judicial scrutiny. No logic can be deduced as to why the Court
was persuaded to reject the argument despite the multifaceted
issues raised by the appellants. The High Court has not analysed           G
the grounds of challenge regarding the validity of the impugned
Amended Regulations and including the competency to frame
such a regulation, appropriately. The High Court merely noted
that the appellants failed to point out any prejudice caused to
them because of exclusion from the benefit flowing from the
                                                                           H
                                 1095
1096             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     principal Regulations. The argument of prejudice was raised by
       the appellants to the detail but the High Court has failed to deal
       with the same, to say the least satisfactorily. Similarly, the detail
       arguments regarding the validity of the impugned Amended
       Regulations and the competency to frame such a regulation has
       not been analysed by the High Court. The writ petition was
 B
       disposed of in a most casual and cavalier manner. It would be
       appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for
       fresh consideration of the writ petition on its own merits in
       accordance with law. [Paras 8 and 9] [1104-F-G; 1105-A-G]
             2. The validity of the regulations can be decided only in
 C     judicial review proceedings before the courts and not by way of
       appeal or review. The appellants having invoked such a remedy
       before the High Court, all contentions available to the appellants
       in that regard ought to have been adjudicated in proper
       perspective. The nature of elaborate order passed by the
 D     Commission on 4 th August, 2015, which culminated with the
       framing of Amendment Regulations, the only remedy available
       to challenge the same was by way of a writ petition under Article
       226/227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 10] [1106-B-C]
               PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory
 E             Commission, Through Secretary (2010) 4 SCC 603 :
               [2010] 3 SCR 609 – relied on.
                               Case Law Reference
       [2010] 3 SCR 609                relied on               Para 10

 F             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appel No. 5139 of
       2019.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2016 of the High
       Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.
       25337 of 2015.
 G           C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Radhika Singh, P. S. Sudheer,
       Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Abhishek Gupta, Jaafar Inayat,
       Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs. for the Appellants.
               Pallav Mongia, Mridul Chakravarty, Advs. for the Respondent.

 H
     M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD.v. HARYANA                            1097
             ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMM.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
       A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in C.W.P.
No.25337 of 2015 (O & M) dated 23rd November, 2016. The appellants
had challenged the fourth amendment to Haryana Electricity Regulatory            B
Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Tariff from
Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase Obligation and
Renewable Energy Certificate) Regulations, 2010 (for short, “principal
Regulations”) published vide notification dated 12th August, 2015 (for
short, “impugned Amended Regulations”) which sought to amend                     C
the principal Regulations. The appellants had also challenged the order
passed by the respondent-Commission dated 4th August, 2015, in
furtherance whereof, the impugned Amended Regulations were framed
by the appropriate authority for revision of norms for determination of
generic tariff for the second control period beginning from 1st April, 2013.
                                                                                 D
       3. The appellants had set up a 9.90 MW independent Biomass
Power Plant, which was declared commercially operational on 3rd May,
2013. The principal Regulations were notified on 3rd February, 2011,
providing for the norms and parameters for determination of tariff for
various renewal energy project developers. As per Regulation 4 of the
principal Regulations, the first control period of three years was to end        E
on 31st March, 2013. The third proviso of Regulation 4 posits that in
case, the regulations for the next control period were not notified after
the expiry of the first control period, the tariff norms as per these
regulations (principal Regulations) would continue to apply until notification
of the revised regulations, subject to adjustments as per the revised            F
regulations. As the first control period had already ended, the appropriate
authority initiated suo motu proceedings for revision of tariff and issued
draft fourth amendment to the principal Regulations, seeking to amend
Regulation 4 and including Regulation 5 of the principal Regulations.
This draft amendment was issued on 29th December, 2014. Pursuant
thereto, the concerned parties submitted their response. After giving            G
opportunity to all concerned, the Commission proceeded to pass an order
dated 4th August, 2015, which attempts to analyse and adjudicate all the
issues raised by the concerned parties. On the basis of the said order,
the impugned Amended Regulations came to be notified. The effect
                                                                                 H
1098             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     whereof was to deny the applicability of tariff norms adjustments to the
       appellant No.1, which had commenced its commercial operations on 3 rd
       May, 2013. The said amendment has been given prospective effect qua
       the appellants. It has made classification between the projects
       commissioned/to be commissioned in financial years 2013-14 on the one
       hand and 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 on the other, without any
 B
       intelligible differentia or any rational basis therefor. Neither the principal
       Regulations nor the impugned Amended Regulations envisage
       classification on the basis of commissioning of renewable energy projects
       in a particular financial year during the same control period. Similarly,
       the regulations do not envisage determination of separate tariff on such
 C     differentiation. Indeed, the authority has been invested with power to
       determine project specific tariff under Regulation 6. In the present case,
       however, the power exercised by the Commission is indisputably with
       reference to Regulation 4 namely, to determine a generic tariff for the
       control period commencing from 1st April, 2013 and ending with financial
       year 2016-17 i.e. 31st March, 2017, for a period of 4 years.
 D
              4. In this back drop, the appellants filed writ petition and prayed
       for the following reliefs:
                                            “PRAYER
                         It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
 E                       Court may graciously be pleased to:
                    a. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the
                       Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
                       in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the Impugned
                       Notification dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) and the
 F                     Impugned Order dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-2)
                       passed by the Respondent to the extent the same seeks
                       to apply the revised regulations with effect from the
                       date of the Impugned Notification; and
                    b. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the
 G                     Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
                       in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent
                       to apply the revised regulations on and from the date of
                       commencement of the Second Control Period i.e. with
                       effect from 01.04.2013; and
 H
    M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD.v. HARYANA                          1099
  ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMM. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

            c. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the         A
               Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
               in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent
               to publish the revised tariff after adjusting the same as
               per the revised regulations from the first day of the
               Second Control Period i.e. 01.04.2013, and to further
                                                                              B
               allow carrying cost on the overdue amounts; and
            d. Issue an appropriate interim direction granting ad-interim
               ex-parte stay of operation of the Impugned Notification
               dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) and the Impugned
               Order dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the
               Respondent; and                                                C

            e. Dispense with serving advance notice upon the
               Respondent; and
            f.   Costs of the Writ Petition be awarded to the Petitioners;
                 and                                                          D
            g. Dispense with filing of certified copies/true typed copies
               of Annexures P-1 to P-10, and the photo/typed copies
               of the Annexures may kindly taken on record and the
               requirement of filing typed/certified copies thereof be
               dispensed with; and                                            E
            h. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
               deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”
       5. The appellants raised almost thirty grounds as articulated in the
writ petition, in support of the reliefs claimed by them. They have
attempted to demonstrate as to how the amended regulations were               F
arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and discriminatory. The respondent
refuted the stand taken by the appellants by filing elaborate counter
affidavit and mainly relied on the order passed by the Commission dated
4th August, 2015, which was the foundation for the amendment of the
relevant provisions of the principal Regulations. The reply affidavit filed
                                                                              G
by the respondents before the High Court runs into about 60 typed pages
(forming part of volume II of the paper book). Accordingly, the writ
petition proceeded before the Division Bench of the High Court. The
High Court in the impugned judgment has noted that the appellants had
raised only two contentions, as can be discerned from paragraph 6 of
the impugned judgment. The same reads thus:                                   H
1100            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A            “6. The grievance of the petitioners is two fold. Firstly with the
             issuance of notification of the Amended Regulations on 12.8.2015,
             there would be different treatment for the persons operating in
             the same control period; namely, who had commissioned their
             projects in the year 2013-14 and the persons, who had
             commissioned thereafter, the control period being same i.e. for
 B
             the years from 2013-14 to 2016-17. Further, it was submitted that
             out of the control period prior to the date of notification of the
             Amended Regulations only financial year 2013-14 has been
             isolated for different treatment, which is discriminatory. How any
             of alleged Regulation is affecting the petitioner was not specifically
 C           pointed out.”
             We would proceed on the basis that this was the limited argument
       canvassed before the High Court during the hearing of the writ petition.
       However, what is intriguing to note is that even these two points have
       been disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court in a most
 D     cursory manner without analysing the issues in proper perspective, as
       can be discerned from the discussion in paragraph Nos.13 to 15 of the
       impugned judgment. The same reads thus:
             “13. It is not in dispute that exercise for revision of the 2010
             Regulations was not started six months before the expiry of the
 E           existing control period on 31.3.2013. The exercise was started
             only in the year 2015. Public hearing was held in which even the
             petitioner-company was represented. Vide order dated 4.8.2015,
             the Commission approved the proposed amendments in the 2010
             Regulations. The Amended Regulations in terms of the order
             passed by the Commission were notified on 12.8.2015. Regulation
 F           1(2) of the Amended Regulations provides that the Regulations
             shall be applicable to all the Renewable Energy Projects
             Commissioned/to be commissioned from Financial Years 2013-14
             to 2016-17, as the control period of four years was provided.
             Regulation 1(3) of the Amended Regulations provides that for the
 G           existing projects commissioned from Financial year 2013-14
             onwards, the revised norms shall be applicable prospectively from
             the date of notification of the Amended Regulations unless
             otherwise provided in the Amended Regulations. For the period
             prior to the date of notification, existing norms as per the 2010
             Regulations shall continue to be applicable. The Amended
 H
  M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD.v. HARYANA                          1101
ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMM. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

   Regulations were to come into force from the date of publication         A
   in the official gazette. The Amended Regulation (4) provides that
   the second control period shall be of four years commencing from
   Financial year 2013-14. 3rd proviso thereto provides that in case
   revised regulations for the next control period are not notified on
   or before the commencement of that period, the tariff norms as
                                                                            B
   per the Amended Regulations shall continue to remain applicable,
   until notification of the revised regulations and the second control
   period shall be deemed to have been extended upto the date of
   notification of the regulations for the next control period.
   14. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
   that there is discriminatory application of regulations qua the          C
   petitioners’ company only because it started operation in the
   Financial year 2013-14, as compared to the other projects, which
   started functioning after Financial year 2013-14 is merely to be
   noticed and rejected. Though the control period is from the
   Financial Years 2013-14 to 2016-17, however, the Amended                 D
   Regulations clearly provide that for the existing projects from
   Financial year 2013-14 onwards, the revised norms shall be
   applicable prospectively, from the date of notification of the
   Amended Regulations.
   15. As far as the second contention raised by learned counsel for        E
   the petitioners regarding application of the Amended Regulations
   in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 4 of the 2010 Regulations is
   concerned, it clearly provides that the existing norms, even for
   the period subsequent to the expiry of control period, shall be
   applicable till such time revised Regulations are notified. However,
   the same shall be subject to adjustments as per revised regulations.     F
   That would mean, adjustments, if any, are to be specifically
   provided for in the Amended Regulations for the period prior to
   the notification of Amended Regulations. Wherever special
   conditions have been provided for in the Amended Regulations
   for different years, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point   G
   out how that prejudiced the petitioners. It is all matter of
   calculations for which facts were examined by the Commission
   while passing the order on 4.8.2015, on the basis of which, the
   Regulations were amended.”

                                                                            H
1102             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A            As a matter of fact, paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment merely
       notices some factual aspects. The reason which weighed with the High
       Court to negative the issues agitated by the appellants can be noticed
       only from paragraph Nos.14 and 15, which ex facie to say the least is
       cryptic.
 B             6. Resultantly, the appellants have approached this Court by way
       of present appeal. The main argument of the appellants is that the
       principal Regulations which indeed, applied to the control period from 3rd
       February, 2011 until 31st March, 2013, but envisaged that the same would
       continue to remain applicable until notification of the revised regulations
       is issued, subject to adjustments as per revised regulations. These
 C     regulations make no distinction on the basis of commissioning of project
       on financial year basis during the same block period or thereafter until
       its application during the extended period. Rather, the control period
       referred to in Regulation 4 encompasses all the projects commissioned
       during that block period and including extended period and must be treated
 D     alike. In other words, the same generic tariff must apply to all the projects
       commissioned during the relevant block period i.e. from 3rd February,
       2011 to 31st March, 2013 and until the issue of revised regulations, subject
       to adjustments as per revised regulations. Therefore, the amended
       regulations must be read in light of the principal Regulations. However,
       the amended regulations entail in denying the applicability of the revised
 E     regulations to R.E. projects commissioned in FY 2013-14, such as the
       appellant, which was commissioned on 3rd May, 2013. The amended
       regulations are for the second control period commencing from 1 st April,
       2013 and ending on 31st March, 2017 for a period of four years, of which
       the first year has been defined as FY 2013-14. Despite this position, the
 F     amended regulation 1(3) makes exception to the applicability of the revised
       regulations to the projects commissioned during FY 2013-14, by making
       it applicable prospectively from the date of notification of the impugned
       Regulations on 12th August, 2015. Whereas, the projects commissioned
       during 20014-15 and onwards during the selfsame second control period
       referred to therein would get the benefit of the revised regulations for
 G     the entire period from the date of commissioning commercial production,
       without there being any intelligible differentia. In other words, the
       appellants have been denied benefit of the revised regulations for the
       period between 3rd May, 2013 to 12th August, 2015. The effect of such a
       provision is to take away the benefit which had enured to the appellants
 H
    M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD.v. HARYANA                          1103
  ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMM. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in terms of Regulation 4 of the principal Regulations, which predicates       A
that the tariff norms as per the principal Regulations shall continue to
remain applicable until notification of the revised regulations, subject to
adjustments as per the revised regulations. Resultantly, the impugned
Amended Regulations suffer from the vice of hostile discrimination
between persons similarly placed namely, projects commissioned during
                                                                              B
the block of second control period governed by the Amended Regulations,
without any intelligible differentia. We need not elaborate on other
arguments which are either to buttress the above-mentioned points or if
we may say so, in the nature of another shade of the same argument
with reference to factual aspects relevant for examining the same. The
sum and substance of the argument is that the appellants have been            C
denuded of their right to get adjustments in the same manner as extended
to projects commissioned in the same control period and despite the
stipulation in the third proviso of the Regulation 4 of the principal
Regulations. Inasmuch as, the impugned Amended Regulations were
notified on 12th August, 2015, therefore, the rights accrued to the
                                                                              D
appellants in terms of Regulation 4 would take effect from commissioning
of their project on 3rd May, 2013 because the principal Regulations were
still applicable and in force. Taking away that fructified right, is
impermissible in law. Further, the impugned Amended Regulations, ex
facie, discriminates between the projects commissioned during the same
control period i.e. second control period from 1st April, 2013 till 31st      E
March, 2017, by singling out the projects commissioned in FY 2013-14.
It is not open to make such classification in respect of projects
commissioned during the same control period. Further, there can be no
two tariffs operating during the same control period. In that, no express
provision to prescribe two sets of tariffs concerning the same control
                                                                              F
period is found in the principal Regulations or the impugned Amended
Regulations. Therefore, classification sought to be done in the impugned
Amended Regulations, cannot be countenanced.
       7. Indeed, the respondents have vehemently supported the
impugned decision of the High Court and would contend that the provisions
engrafted in the impugned notification are manifestation of the order         G
passed by the Commission dated 4th August, 2015. The Commission had
elaborately analysed all aspects of the matter before passing the said
order. In other words, the respondents have drawn support from the
analysis done by the Commission in the suo moto proceedings initiated
                                                                              H
1104             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     by it for revision of norms (for tariff operation for the second control
       period commencing from 1st April, 2013). That order runs into over 100
       typed pages and has analysed the necessity of revision vis-à-vis each
       head to be reckoned for determination of tariff. The appellants had
       participated in the said proceedings. However, the stand taken by the
       appellants did not commend to the Commission, as can be discerned
 B
       from the discussion in the order passed by it on 4th August, 2015. Further,
       it was open to the appellants to approach the Commission by way of a
       review if they had any reservation with regard to the view taken by
       Commission in the said order. It was also open to the appellants to file
       appeal against the said order. However, without resorting to such
 C     remedies, the appellants chose to file writ petition and have raised grounds
       which are untenable in light of the discussion recorded by the Commission
       in its order dated 4th August, 2015. It is certainly not a case of hostile
       discrimination considering the fact that Commission has recorded tangible
       reasons as to why the applicability of the revised regulations was required
       to be made prospective in respect of projects commissioned during FY
 D
       2013-14. It is urged that the exercise of power in framing regulations -
       be it principal Regulations or impugned Amended Regulations - in terms
       of Section 61 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 permits
       classification on the basis of the date of commissioning of the project
       during the relevant period and which may inevitably result in providing
 E     for two sets of tariffs during the same control period. It is submitted that
       even though the impugned judgment of the High Court is brief, the
       conclusions reached therein are unexceptionable and therefore, this
       appeal ought to be dismissed.
              8. After perusing the impugned judgment, we have no hesitation
 F     in taking the view that the High Court has committed manifest error or
       so to speak, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it for adjudicating the
       relevant issues raised by the appellants. For, there is hardly any intelligible
       discussion in the impugned judgment in that regard. If we may say so, it
       is cryptic and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. We say so because,
       up to paragraph 9 of the judgment the High Court has only reproduced
 G     the rival stand. Paragraph 11 refers to the relevant provisions. Paragraph
       12 is mere narration of some facts concerning this case. Paragraph 13,
       broadly refers to the purport of the provisions in the principal Regulations
       and the impugned Amended Regulations. The discussion with regard to
       the merits of the challenge, can be discerned only from paragraph Nos.14
 H     and 15 reproduced hitherto. Paragraph 14 even if fairly analysed, merely
    M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD.v. HARYANA                          1105
  ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMM. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

adverts to the argument of discriminatory application of regulations qua      A
the appellant company and proceeds to reject the same. No logic can be
deduced as to why the Court was persuaded to reject the argument
despite the multifaceted issues raised by the appellants. The second
sentence in the said paragraph then proceeds to record that the control
period may be from FY 2013-14 onwards, however, the impugned
                                                                              B
Amended Regulations envisage application of revised norms to projects
commissioned in FY 2013-14 prospectively from the date of notification
of the impugned Amended Regulations. In other words, the High Court
has not analysed the grounds of challenge regarding the validity of the
impugned Amended Regulations and including the competency to frame
such a regulation, appropriately. Strikingly, the High Court then             C
straightaway proceeds to examine the second contention raised by the
appellants in reference to the third proviso in the principal Regulations
providing for adjustments as per revised regulations. The Court merely
noted that the appellants failed to point out any prejudice caused to them
because of exclusion from the benefit flowing from the principal
                                                                              D
Regulations. The appellants, on the other hand, have invited our attention
to the specific grounds taken by the appellants in the writ petition and
also noted in the order of the Commission dated 4th August, 2015 and
additionally articulated in the ground No. B of the special leave petition,
giving comparative chart indicating substantial disparity regarding the
norms applicable as per principal Regulations and the impugned Amended        E
Regulations. In other words, the argument of prejudice was raised by
the appellants to the detail but the High Court has failed to deal with the
same, to say the least satisfactorily. Similarly, the detail arguments
regarding the validity of the impugned Amended Regulations and the
competency to frame such a regulation has not been analysed by the
                                                                              F
High Court.
       9. Suffice it to observe that the discussion in two paragraphs (para
14 and 15), to say the least, is one of disposing of the writ petition in a
most casual and cavalier manner. That cannot be countenanced. Having
said this, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to
relegate the parties before the High Court for fresh consideration of the     G
writ petition on its own merits in accordance with law. We refrain from
expressing any opinion either way on the merits of the controversy or
the grounds of challenge regarding the impugned Amended Regulations.
In other words, the High Court must consider all relevant aspects of the
                                                                              H
1106                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


 A     matter agitated by the appellants and deal with the same appropriately in
       accordance with law.
              10. For completion of the record, we must note the decision of the
       Constitution Bench of this Court in PTC India Ltd. Vs. Central
       Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through Secretary 1, which has
 B     held that the challenge to the validity of the regulations can be decided
       only in judicial review proceedings before the courts and not by way of
       appeal or review. The appellants having invoked such a remedy before
       the High Court, all contentions available to the appellants in that regard
       ought to have been adjudicated in proper perspective. We agree with
       the appellants that the nature of elaborate order passed by the Commission
 C     on 4th August, 2015, which culminated with the framing of Amendment
       Regulations the only remedy available to challenge the same is by way
       of a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
              11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
       and order is set aside. The CWP No.285337 of 2015 (O&M) is restored
 D     to the file of the High Court to its original number, for being considered
       afresh by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law. All
       pending applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.


 E     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.




 F




 G




       1
 H         (2010) 4 SCC 603