Case: Gujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd Vs. Essar Power Ltd

taken as set aside by the latter. This is because the proper fulfillment of the Primary is the business of the Accessory also as the latter operates solely for the sake of the former. Consequently if, in consideration of its own qualification it were to deprive the Primary of its natural accomplishment then there would be a disruption of that action (the Primary) for the sake of which it was meant to operate. Though in such a case the proper fulfillment of the Primary with all its accompaniments would mean the deprival of the Accessory of its own natural accompaniment, yet, as the fact of the Accessory being equipped with all its accompaniments is not so very necessary (as that of the primary), there would be nothing incongruous in the said deprival". See Ganganath Jhas English translation of the Tantravartika, Vol.3 page 1141." 50. In our opinion the gunapradhan axiom applies to this case. Section 174 is the pradhan whereas Section 175 is the guna (or subordinate). If we read Section 175 in isolation then of course we would have to agree to Mr. Narimans submission that Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies. But we cannot read Section 175 in isolation, we have to read it along with Section 174, and reading them together, we have to adjust Section 175 (the guna or subordinate) to make it in accordance with Section 174 (the pradhan or principal). For doing so we will have to add the following words at the end of Section 175 "except where there is a conflict, express or implied, between a provision in this Act and any other law, in which case the former will prevail. 51. No doubt ordinarily the literal rule of interpretation should be followed, and hence the Court should neither add nor delete words in a statute. However, in exceptional cases this can be done where not doing so would deprive certain existing words in a statute of all meaning, or some part of the statute may become absurd. 52. In the chapter on ‘Exceptional Construction in his book on ‘Interpretation of Statutes Maxwell writes: "Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This may be done by departing from the rules of grammar, by giving an unusual meaning to particular words, by altering their collocation, by rejecting them altogether, or by interpolating other words, under the influence, no doubt, of an irresistible conviction that the legislature could not possibly have intended what the words signify, and that the modifications thus made are mere corrections of careless language and really give the true intention." 53. Thus, in S.S. Kalra vs. Union of India 1991(2) SCC 87, this Court has observed that sometimes courts can supply words which have been accidentally omitted. 54. In G.P. Singhs ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation Ninth Edition, 2004 at pages 71-74 several decisions of this Court and foreign Courts have been referred to where the Court has added words to a statute (though cautioning that normally this should not be done). 55. Hence we have to add the aforementioned words at the end of Section 175 otherwise there will be an irreconciliable conflict between Section 174 and Section 175. 56. In our opinion the principle laid down in Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the principal or primary whereas the principle laid down in Section 175 is the accessory or subordinate to the principal. Hence Section 174 will prevail over Section 175 in matters where there is any conflict (but no further).57. In our opinion Section 174 and Section 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be read harmoniously by utilizing the Samanjasya, Badha and Gunapradhana principles of Mimansa. This can be done by holding that when there is any express or implied conflict between the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and any other Act then the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 will prevail, but when there is no conflict, express or implied, both the Acts are to be read together.58. In the present case we have already noted that there an implied conflict between Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 since under Section 86(1)(f) the dispute between licensees and generating companies is to be decided by the State Commission or the arbitrator nominated by it, whereas under Section 11 of the Arbitrary and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court can refer such disputes to an arbitrator appointed by it. Hence on harmonious construction of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 we are of the opinion that whenever there is a dispute between a licensee and the generating companies only the State Commission or Central Commission (as the case may be) or arbitrator (or arbitrators) nominated by it can resolve such a dispute, whereas all other disputes (unless there is some other provision in the Electricity Act, 2003) would be decided in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is also evident from Section 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, except for Section 11 all other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply to arbitrations under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (unless there is a conflicting provision in the Electricity Act, 2003, in which case such provision will prevail.)59. In the present case, it is true that there is a provision for arbitration in the agreement between the parties dtd. 30.5.1996. Had the Electricity Act, 2003 not been enacted, there could be no doubt that the arbitration would have to be done in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]25. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. K.K. Venugopal has to be accepted.26. It may be noted that Section 86(1)(f) of the Act of 2003 is a special provision for adjudication of disputes between the licensee and the generating companies. Such disputes can be adjudicated upon either by the State Commission or the person or persons to whom it is referred for arbitration. In our opinion the word ‘and in Section 86(1)(f) between the words generating companies and ‘to refer any dispute for arbitration means ‘or. It is well settled that sometimes ‘and can mean ‘or and sometimes ‘or can mean ‘and (vide G.P. Singhs ‘Principle of Statutory Interpretation 9th Edition, 2004 page 404.)27. In our opinion in Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the word ‘and between the words ‘generating companies and the words ‘refer any dispute means ‘or, otherwise it will lead to an anomalous situation because obviously the State Commission cannot both decide a dispute itself and also refer it to some Arbitrator. Hence the word ‘and in Section 86(1)(f) means ‘or.28. Section 86(1)(f) is a special provision and hence will override the general provision in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for arbitration of disputes between the licensee and generating companies. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no application to the question who can adjudicate/arbitrate disputes between licensees and generating companies, and only Section 86(1)(f) shall apply in such a situation.29. This is also evident from Section 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which has been quoted above. We may clarify that the agreement dated 30.5.1996 is not a part of the licence of the licensee. An agreement is something prior to the issuance of a licence. Hence any provision for arbitration in the agreement cannot be deemed to be a provision for arbitration in the licence. Hence also it is the State Commission which alone has power to arbitrate/adjudicate the dispute either itself or by appointing an arbitrator.It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner, vide Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 (para 12), Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 (para 22), etc. Section 86(1)(f) provides a special manner of making references to an arbitrator in disputes between a licensee and a generating company. Hence by implication all other methods are barred.In our opinion to resolve this conflict the Mimansa principles of Interpretation would of great utility.In our opinion the principle laid down in Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the principal or primary whereas the principle laid down in Section 175 is the accessory or subordinate to the principal. Hence Section 174 will prevail over Section 175 in matters where there is any conflict (but no further).57. In our opinion Section 174 and Section 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be read harmoniously by utilizing the Samanjasya, Badha and Gunapradhana principles of Mimansa. This can be done by holding that when there is any express or implied conflict between the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and any other Act then the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 will prevail, but when there is no conflict, express or implied, both the Acts are to be read together.58. In the present case we have already noted that there an implied conflict between Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 since under Section 86(1)(f) the dispute between licensees and generating companies is to be decided by the State Commission or the arbitrator nominated by it, whereas under Section 11 of the Arbitrary and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court can refer such disputes to an arbitrator appointed by it. Hence on harmonious construction of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 we are of the opinion that whenever there is a dispute between a licensee and the generating companies only the State Commission or Central Commission (as the case may be) or arbitrator (or arbitrators) nominated by it can resolve such a dispute, whereas all other disputes (unless there is some other provision in the Electricity Act, 2003) would be decided in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is also evident from Section 158 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, except for Section 11 all other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply to arbitrations under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (unless there is a conflicting provision in the Electricity Act, 2003, in which case such provision will prevail.)59. In the present case, it is true that there is a provision for arbitration in the agreement between the parties dtd. 30.5.1996. Had the Electricity Act, 2003 not been enacted, there could be no doubt that the arbitration would have to be done in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,