2011 (5) ALT 188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
N.V. RAMANA, J.
India Cements Ltd. and another – Appellants
Versus
Chairman, APSERC, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
W.P. No. 18212 of 2001
Decided on : 29-7-2011.
B) ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, Section 2 (39) - A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 (framed under Section 54 of A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998 saved by Act of 2003) Regulation 45-B (as introduced by Regulation No.8 of 2000 and as substituted by Regulation No.1 of 2003) - G.O.Ms. No.9, dated 7-6-2005 :- The Power co-ordination committee constituted under the G.O. is meant for supervising the trade functions between TRANSCO and DISCOMs only and the G.O. in no way authorizes the committee to approach the Regulation Commission on behalf of DISCOMS to fix the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment charge. (Para 90)
C) A.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (CONDUCT OF BUSINESS) REGULATIONS, 1999, Regulation 45-B (as substituted by Regulation No.1 of 2003), Condition No.4 and Regulations 55 and 59:- DISCOMs are entitled to claim the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment within thirty days of the end of the quarter and if not made within this limitation period shall forfeit the right to claim. The Regulation Commission cannot condone the delay under Regulation 55 as claimed by the Respondent and there seems to any such petition for condonation of delay. However the Regulation Commission can condone the delay for reasons records if sufficient reasons have been shown for the delay. (Para 100)
D) ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, Sections 86 (3) and 111 - A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998, Section 10 (7) - A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999, Regulation 7 (2) (ii):- Determination of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment is not a legislative function, but qus-judicial function effecting the rights and obligations of the licensees and the order passed thereon is appealable both on propriety and on fact facts. Hence under Section 10 (7) of the Act as well as under Regulation 7(2) giving an opportunity to the effected people like the petitioner is mandatory. (Paras 114 to 128, 131 to 138 and 141)
E) PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:- Except in case of legislative functions, in all quasi-judicial and executive functions, principles of natural justice has to be complied with. (Para 111)
F) WRIT PETITION – The question whether A.P. State Regulation Commission can defend its action of passing orders on the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment in a writ petition by appointing a counsel was not answered and left it to be decided in an appropriate case. (Para 141)
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who are High Tension (HT) electricity consumers, have called in question, the proceedings dated 05.06.2010, issued by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, determining and approving the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the financial year 2008, as illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Regulation No.1 of 2003, Electricity Act, 2003, violative of principles of natural justice and the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The undisputed facts that are necessary for disposal of this batch• of cases may be noted, and they run thus:
The petitioners being HT' electricity consumers entered into agreements with A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd. (AP TRANSCO), for supply of electricity continuously. Pursuant to the said agreements, and the laws governing the supply of power, AP TRANSCO has been supplying power to the petitioners continuously, for meeting their requirements.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, in the process of electricity reforms, enacted A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998, for constitution of Electricity Regulatory Commission, restructuring the electricity industry, rationalization of generation, transmission, distribution of supply of electricity and for taking measures conducive to the development and management of the electricity industry in an efficient, economic and competitive manner. Pursuant to the said Act, the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission was established. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). The said Commission was vested with various powers and functions, including granting licenses and determination of and tariffs.
4. Subsequently, the Union of India enacted Electricity Act, 2003, in order to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and for taking measures conducive to the development of electricity industry, protecting interest of consumers, rationalization of tariff, ensuring transparent policy regarding subsidies and constitution of regulatory bodies. The Electricity Act, 2003 repealed, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 and, the provisions of the A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998, to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, including the constitution of A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, were saved (Section 185(3))
5. While the matters stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O. Ms. No. 58, Energy (Power-III), dated 07.06.2005, divided AP TRANSCO into four Distribution Companies (DISCOMs), namely AP NPDCL, AP SPDCL, AP EPDCL and AP CPDCL, and transferred and vested the rights and obligations and contracts relating to procurement and bulk supply of electricity or trading of electricity to which AP TRANSCO is a party, in the said four DISCOMs, with effect from 09.06.2005. The DISCOMs are State Government undertakings, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for doing business of distribution of electricity.
6. The four DISCOMs being independent licence holders engaged in distribution business and retail supply business of electricity in their respective areas, submitted separate applications on 30.11.2007 before the Commission, for determination of tariff, for the year 2008-09. The Commission in exercise of its power of determination of tariff, under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003, passed Tariff Order on 20.03.2008. The said Tariff Order determined the tariff and also stated that Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) will be extra as applicable.
7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, for the convenient transaction of business and to ensure co-ordination among the four DISCOMs, constituted a Committee in the name of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Power Co-ordination Committee), was co
Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj: 2010 (7) SCJ 493.
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.: (2003) 2 SCC 107 = 2003 (3) ALT 2.2 (DN SC).
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.: (2004) 3 SCC 553.
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. Vice Chancellor: (2009) 2 SCC 630.
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala: (1999) 3 SCC 422.
Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd.: 2005 (6) SCJ 589 = 2005 (6) ALT 42.3 (DN SC).
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.: (1987) 2 SCC 720.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. Vice Chancellor: (2009) 2 SCC 630 (Same as F.No.12).
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia: AIR 2004 SC 1159.
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. KS. Pandey: 2005 (8) SCJ 5 = 2006 (1) A LT 63 (DN SC).
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Pulak Enterprises: (2009) 5 SCC 641.
Bissa Stone Lime Co. v. Orissa State Electricity Board: (1976) 2 SCC 167.
Kerala S.E.B. v. S.N. Govinda Prabhu and Bros.: (1986) 4 SCC 198.
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.: (1987) 2 SCC 720.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A.P.S.E.B.: (1991) 3 SCC 299.
Ashok Soap Factory v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi: (1993) 2 SCC 37.
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Usha Martin Industries: (1997) 5 SCC 289.
BSES Ltd. v. Tata Power Co. Ltd.: (2004) 1 SCC 195.
Bihar State Electricity Board v. Pulak Enterprises
Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India: (2003) 3 SCC 186.
Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India: (2004) 8 SCC 524.
Tharoo Mal v. Puran Chand Pandey: (1978) 1 SCC 102.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India: (1990) 3 SCC 223.
PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission: (2010) 4 SCC 603.
Association of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P.: AIR 2002 SC 1361.
W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commn. v. CESC Ltd.: (2002) 8 SCC 715 (Same as F.No.20).
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh: AIR 1958 SC 86.
A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S. Wadhwani: AIR 1961 SC 1506.
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar
Committee of Management v. Vice Chancellor: (2009) 2 SCC 630.
Prag Ice and Oil Mills v. Union of India: (1978) 3 SCC 459.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.