AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Issue notice to the Respondent No. 2 only as the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 3 have already put in appearance and they have already been served copies of the writ petitions.
Heard the learnedcounsel for the parties on the interim relief.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Damodar Valley Corporation ( DVC), a company engaged in generation and transmission of electricity did not apply for revision of tariff for long and ultimately, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission directed the DVC to submit proposal for tariff upon which only on 26.10.2009 the DVC submitted a petition for prescribing the tariff. It is submitted that the petition filed was defective. However, during pendency of that petition since 26.10.2009, all of a sudden on 23.6.2011 by exercising powers under Regulation 5 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission(Terms & Conditions of Tariff)(1st Amendment) Regulation 2009, the Commission increased the tariff by the interim order. It is submitted that the Petitioners have challenged the validity and virus of the Regulation 5(4) of the aforesaid Regulation, 2009 and have preferred the writ petitions because of the violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed without notice to the Petitioners, the consumers and that too, of such interim nature fastening liabilities upon the Petitioners with retrospective effect. It is also submitted that the order impugned is absolutely illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice as it is a non speaking order and it contains No. reasons for enhancing the tariff and that too from April, 2009-14.
Learned Counsel appearing for the DVC submitted that except the Petitioners, all others have started paying the tariff in accordance with the order dated 23.6.2011. It is also submitted that it is clear from Regulation 5 of the aforesaid Regulations 2009 that not only under the provisions of Regulation 5, but also as per Section 94(2) of the Electricity Act, the Commission has the power to pass an interim order with regard to the revision of tariff. Learned Counsel for the DVC further submitted that it is also specifically provided that in case the revision of tariff is not maintained finally, the amount paid by the consumers can be adjusted against future liability for which DVC can be saddled with interest which too can be adjusted against future liabilities of the consumers.
It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that after this interim order, the final order is required to be passed within a period of 120 days.
Prima facie, there are facts which are not in dispute that a petition for tariff revision was filed on 26.10.2099. Admittedly, No. notice was served upon the Petitioners before passing the interim oder in spite of filing of objection against tariff proposal submitted by the DVC as stated by the learned Counsel for the DVC that reply has already been filed, ( which is not correct according to the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners ) and further more, the interim order has been passed and made effective retrospectively in the matter which was pending before the Commission since 2009. If the issue if required to be decided within 120 days, then, what was the reason for passing such an order of increase of tariff from retrospective effect and, therefore, it requires consideration.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, meanwhile, the Respondent DVC is restrained from recovering any amount in pursuance of the impugned order dated 23.6.2011 from the Petitioners, up to 24th August, 2011.
Requisites, etc. for issue of notice in two sets, returnable on 24.8.2011, be filed by tomorrow upon which, process be issued and one set be given to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners for issue of the notice by speed post.