IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in pronouncing the final order by a regulatory commission does not warrant setting aside the order, and statutory remedies of appeal should be pursued to challenge such delays.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 49614/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

CM(M) 1571/2023 and CM APPL. 49613/2023(for interim relief)

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 i.e., learned Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (`CERC'), to re-hear the submissions of the both the parties in petition nos. 54/MP/2021, 135/MP/2022 and 239/MP/2019 (collectively referred to as `petitions') and to pass its final order in a time bound manner.

2. It is stated that the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 herein i.e., THDC India Ltd., had approached the learned CERC seeking adjudication of the aforesaid petitions under Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (`Electricity Act'). It is stated that on 12.04.2022, learned CERC was pleased to issue an interim order in favour of Petitioner no.1 in its petition no. 54/MP/2021. It is stated that after completion of pleadings, learned CERC had granted a hearing to the parties; and on 10.08.2022 was pleased to reserve orders in the aforesaid three (3) petitions.

2.1. It is stated that since the final orders were not pronounced, the petitions were orally mentioned before the learned CERC on 06.03.2023, 11.04.2023 and lastly on 30.08.2023, with a request to issue final orders in the petitions.

2.2. It is stated in this petition that when the matter was last mentioned on 30.08.2023, the learned CERC had observed that it shall take steps to issue its orders on an urgent basis.

3. In the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners have filed this petition on 21.09.2023 seeking a direction to learned CERC to re-hear the submissions of both the parties in the aforesaid three (3) petitions and pass appropriate final orders. The Petitioners have also filed CM APPL. 49613/2023 in this petition, seeking a restraint against learned CERC from passing any orders and/or directions in the aforesaid three (3) petitions.

4. This petition was first listed before this Court on 22.09.2023 and when the same was called out at 04:30 PM, this Court was apprised by the learned counsel for the CERC i.e., Respondent No.1 that final order has already been drawn up and shall be pronounced on or before 29.09.2023. The matter was thereafter adjourned and posted for hearing for today i.e., on 25.09.2023.

5. When the matter was called out for hearing today, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners stated that a common and final order dated 23.09.2023 has been pronounced by the learned CERC on 23.09.2023, disposing of the said petitions.

5.1. He sought leave to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') to amend this petition and to include a prayer for quashing of the order dated 23.09.2023 and further seek a direction to continue the interim order dated 12.04.2022 passed in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 by learned CERC in petition no. 54/MP/2021.

5.2. He also sought leave to file a second application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking stay of the operation of order dated 23.09.2023, passed by the learned CERC.

5.3. He states at the outset that in this petition they are not seeking to challenge the final order dated 23.09.2023, on merits.

5.4. He states that the sole ground for seeking quashing of the order dated 23.09.2023 is the fact that the said order has been passed thirteen (13) months after it was first reserved and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

5.5. In this regard he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 603, wherein the judgment of the High Court was set aside on the ground of a delay of seven (7) months in pronouncing the reasons for the operative portion of the order, pronounced earlier. He further relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 31