2012 (3) ALT 379
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B.LOKUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited & Others
Versus
A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary & Others
WRIT APPEAL NOS.858 of 2011, 924, 925, 946, 948, 949, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 978, 979, 980, 981, 999, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1012, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1029, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1049, 1067, 1068, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1121, 1127, 1128, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191 Decided On: 20-01-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per SK, J.)
The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission entertained a Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) claim made by the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee on behalf of the four Distributing Companies (DISCOMS) in the State for the financial year 2008-09 and by its proceedings dated 05.06.2010 permitted them to levy FSA charges as indicated therein on all consumers, except LT agricultural consumers, for the four quarters of that financial year. The proceedings dated 05.06.2010 came to be challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions by aggrieved consumers.
2. The learned Judge who heard the writ petitions at great length framed the following questions for consideration:
1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission?
2) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 07.06.2005 has locus standi to file an application on behalf of the four Distributing Companies?
3) Whether the application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee on behalf of the Distributing Companies is barred by limitation? Whether the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission has inherent power under Regulation 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 to condone such delay?
4) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is obligated to comply with the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order determining FSA?
By common order dated 29.07.2011, the learned Judge summarized his findings to the effect that though the alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned orders, the writ petitions were maintainable; that the Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee, not being a licensee as defined under Section 2(39) of the Electricity Act, 2003, had no locus standi to file an application before the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission claiming FSA on behalf of the DISCOMS; that under Regulation 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission has no inherent power to condone the delay enabling it to entertain applications claiming FSA beyond the time prescribed in Regulation 45-B(4) thereof; that the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission however has the power to condone the delay in filing of applications by the licensees claiming FSA even beyond the time prescribed under Regulation 59 thereof; and that while considering the applications filed by the licensees claiming FSA, the Commission has to follow the principles of natural justice. Holding so, the learned Judge set aside the impugned proceedings dated 05.06.2010 passed by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter, ‘the Commission’) and allowed the writ petitions.
3. The writ petitioners are however aggrieved by the finding of the learned Judge that the Commission can condone the delay in the filing of FSA applications by the licensees beyond the specified period by exercising powers under Regulation 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter, ‘the Business Regulations’). Hence, these appeals.
4. At the time of admission of these appeals, the Court was informed that proceedings had been initiated afresh before the Commission pursuant to the order under appeal. The Commission was accordingly permitted to go on with the said proceedings upto the stage of passing a final order but was directed not to give effect to the same. We are told that the proceedings are still in progress.
5. As neither the Commission nor the DISCOMS chose to assail the findings of the learned Judge which went agai
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar: AIR 1955 SC 661. (Para 27)
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala: 2010 (3) SCJ 720. (Para 29)
Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh: (2010) 8 SCC 685. (Para 32)
Salem Advocates Bar Association
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India: (1984) 3 SCC 127. (Para 38)
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.