Section 20A Of The Specific Relief Act: Shielding Public Utility Projects Or Depriving Concessionaires Of Emergency Interim Remedies?
- IJLLR Journal
- 9 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Ishika Rana, BBA LLB (H), Xavier Law School, XIM UNIVERSITY, Odisha, India.
ABSTRACT
Infrastructure contracts occupy a unique place in Indian commercial law. They are not the same as mere private contracts. Their execution can affect transportation, electronic power, telecommunication, health, education, water supply and other activities dependent on people. Considering the economic implications of prolonged disputes, Parliament introduced Sections 20A, 20B and 20C into The Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the help of The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018. According to Section 20A, the courts will not be able to grant an injunction in a suit regarding the mentioned infrastructure projects if the injunction hampers the construction or completion of the project. Section 41(ha) stipulates that injunctions cannot be granted in case they restrict the construction process.
The law aims to deal with a legitimate problem, as an injunctive relief may hinder the progress of the project for several months or years leading to increased prices, uncertainty in contractual relationships and public damage. However, the legal limitation raises a question. What is the situation when a government or any of its agencies or the project owner is the one to be in breach of the contract with the concessionaire? When courts are unable to provide effective interim relief, can Section 20A be viewed as a way through which infrastructure development is able to evade its contractual obligations?
The paper seeks to critically analyze Section 20A with respect to its statutory framework, its legislative intent, judicial interpretation and relationship with the concept of interim relief contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It will argue that Section 20A should not be construed as an exemption for public authorities since it is justified only in certain specific situations where it will not cause harm to public infrastructure, as can be seen in the case of NHAI v. Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. The paper suggests that the law should be balanced in its effects and take into consideration various important factors such as the proportionality of the measure taken, importance of the project, urgency, possibility of payment and other safeguards available.
