JUDGMENT :

C.K. Buch, J.

These writ petitions are preferred by Public Limited Companies, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions, more particularly, writ of mandamus quashing and setting the order dated 25th June, 2004 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission [Ahmedabad] [hereafter referred to as "the Commission"] in Case No. 256 of 2003. It is further prayed that this Court should declare Regulation-62 of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission [Terms and Conditions of Tariff] Regulations, 2005 [hereafter to be referred to as "Regulations of 2005"], to the extent that "in addition the Commission may also determine the charges on account of service rendered by the Utility to the consumers, e.g. Grid Support Charges" as ultra vires the Act, null and void.

2. One ancillary relief has been prayed in all the petitions and it is submitted that pending the hearing and disposal of the petitions, operation, execution and implementation of the order under challenge dated 25th June, 2004 passed by the Commission may be stayed. Here, it will be relevant to note that Gujarat Electricity Board [hereafter referred to as "the GEB"] was the petitioner before the Commission and while dealing with the said petition, the impugned order is passed. Pending this group petitions, proceedings have been invoked to get quantum of Parallel Operation Charge [hereafter referred to as "POC"] so that Commission can determine POC as charge under the head of "Grid Support Charge". The Commission, of course, has adjourned the hearing and process of determination of the points submitted by the State Transmission Licensee [hereafter referred to as "Utility" or "Licensee"], more particularly on account of pendency of the present petitions and the nature of reliefs prayed for by the petitioner Companies. The first petition being Special Civil Application No.14742 or 2004 came to be filed by Hindalco Industries Limited against the GEB, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Other petitioners also have the same status, i.e. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is contended by the petitioners that the order under challenge passed by the Commission is contrary to law and the same is also not valid being an order passed devoid of authority/jurisdiction. The order is challenged on various grounds, but on plain reading of the petitions preferred, it is possible to note that the petitioners have raised mainly certain questions of law and have challenged the proprietary of the order also on merit. However, counsel for the petitioners have not addressed the Court on merit the factual matrix, more particularly in the background of one significant situation, i.e. pendency of the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Licensee/Utility before the Commission. But while responding to the submissions made by the contesting respondents [Transmission Utility] and the counsel appearing for the Commission, the petitioners have tried to explain the factual contingency and have submitted that on facts also, the petitioners can ably dislodge entitlement of the GEB to recover any such charge or charges like POC from the petitioners. In nutshell, the questions emerging from the grounds of challenge are as under:-

(i) Whether the Commission was justified in holding the petition of GEB for determination of POC to be legally maintainable despite holding that GEB had not established whether any Grid Support had at all been made available for Parallel Operation or that any costs had been incurred by GEB for the purpose.

(ii) Whether the Commission had jurisdiction under the law to issue a declaration that POC were leviable by GEB for determination of such charges in the absence of data evidencing service rendered or costs incurred by GEB for Parallel Operation.

(iii) Whether the Commission was justified in g