SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1168

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Bhansali Dyeing, Proprietorship - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11242, 7738, 8901, 8936, 8939, 9049, 9065, 9147, 9168, 9228, 9230, 9254, 9439, 9507, 9736, 9765, 9774, 9838, 9852, 9859, 10172, 10174, 10448, 10491, 10514, 10683, 11037, 11168, 11175, 11178, 11182, 11183, 11185, 11186, 11197, 11201, 11221, 11223, 11224, 11225, 11226, 11239, 11243, 11244, 11245, 11246, 11247, 11248, 11249, 11250, 11251, 11265, 11372, 11381, 11386, 11389, 11391, 11392, 11394, 11396, 11397, 11398, 11400, 11402, 11408, 11409, 11411, 11413, 11416, 11430, 11432, 11438, 11439, 11440, 11441, 11444, 11446, 11450, 11451, 11475, 11478, 11491, 11548, 11577, 11699, 11767, 11772, 11774, 11776, 11784, 11787, 11789, 11790, 11792, 11793, 11795, 11805, 11808, 11810, 11812, 11814, 11821, 11860, 12050, 12052, 12056, 12057, 12058, 12061, 12062, 12063, 12065, 12067, 12068, 12070, 12073, 12075, 12076, 12079, 12093, 12097, 12099, 12100, 12105, 12182, 12192, 12199, 12218, 12247, 12332, 12353, 12355, 12356, 12357, 12361, 12362, 12363, 12365, 12366, 12367, 12368, 12369, 12370, 12372, 12373, 12374, 12375, 12376, 12377, 12378, 12379, 12386, 12393, 12397, 12398, 12400, 12401, 12402, 12404, 12406, 12407, 12410, 12411, 12469, 12547, 12753, 12762, 12764, 12766, 12769, 12776, 12848, 12876, 12905, 12907, 12911, 12915, 12957, 13045, 13047, 13201, 13250, 13252, 13253, 13256, 13311, 13312, 13315, 13316, 13318, 13322, 13326, 13332, 13336, 13337, 13342, 13351, 13357, 13360, 13367, 13395, 13399, 13400, 13401, 13407, 13408, 13409, 13411, 13412, 13413, 13414, 13415, 13416, 13418, 13419, 13438, 13452, 13458, 13471, 13476, 13478, 13495, 13590, 13632, 13682, 13717, 13802, 13803, 13807, 13940, 13997, 14102, 14132, 14154, 14276, 14292, 14293, 14398, 14405, 14407, 14411, 14418, 14424, 14427, 14430, 14433, 14435, 14436, 14437, 14438, 14440, 14442, 14443, 14458, 14475, 14479, 14511, 14514, 14515, 14516, 14517, 14518, 14519, 14526, 14560, 14566, 14589, 14593, 14698, 14743, 14750, 14941, 15168, 15178, 16008, 16441, 13587, 10606, 11273, 12886, 13593, 13595, 14899, 15426, 15679, 16396, 16446, 11573, 9775, 9561, 8823, 16711, 16734, 7720, 6827, 9682, 9683, 9684, 9687, 9689, 9690, 9694, 9697, 16728, 9097, 10749, 5073, 7416, 8283, 8750, 8753, 8769, 8772, 8779, 9113, 9131, 9179, 9181, 9198, 9416, 9421, 9704, 9771, 9930, 10026, 10055, 10056, 10118, 10140, 10199, 10286, 10289, 10292, 10383, 10413, 10416, 10534, 10536, 10568, 10577, 10701, 10729, 10730, 10802, 10825, 10940, 10965, 10991, 11147, 11293, 11671, 11679, 11705, 11937, 12219, 12227, 12253, 12259, 12583, 12610, 12623, 12624, 12625, 12908, 12981, 12985, 13064, 13237, 13299, 14813, 16940, 11328, 11803, 12409, 13134, 14892, 15410, 15421, 15583, 16661, 16842, 12688, 8238, 11511, 7428, 7470, 7774, 7872, 8112, 8285, 8300, 10156, 10349, 11039, 11044, 11339, 16954, 17132, 14895, 12609, 9729, 9317, 17454, 10857, 9823 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18038, 18588 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 305, 934 of 2020
Decided On : 09-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aditya K. Shah, Ms. Anukriti Jain & Mr. Himanshu, Mr. Ramit Mehta with Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari & Tarun Dudia, Mr. Abhishek Singh Rathore, Mr. Tushar Moad with Ms. Aditi Moad, Mr. Naman Mohnot, Mr. Arvind Vyas with Mr. Amit Vyas, Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Mr. Sharad Kothari, Mr. Mukesh Kachhwaha, Mr. Ayush Goyal, Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat, Ms. Sonu Rathore, Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Ramkishore Suthar for.Mr. Akshat Verma, Mr. Chain Singh, Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi, Mr. Shridhar Mehta, Mr. Keshav Bhati, Mr. Vivek Firoda
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni, AAAG, Mr. Deepak Chandak, AGC & Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore, Mr. Bipin Gupta, Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.G.C, Mr. Vinay Kothari with,Ms. Kumkum Shah, Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha, Mr. Suniel Purohit

The court established that consumers cannot be charged for interest/carrying costs due to DISCOMS' delayed payments, limiting the special fuel surcharge to the original principal amount only.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 62(4) - Tariff Regulations, 2019 - Special Fuel Surcharge - Respondent-DISCOMS permitted to recover additional power purchase cost through special fuel surcharge - The court quashed the imposition of surcharge on interest/carrying costs incurred due to delayed payments, allowing recovery only on the original principal amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores. (Paras 11.1, 11.2, 11.3)

(B) Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction - The court maintained that the petitions were maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Act, as they involved violations of principles of natural justice and jurisdictional issues. (Paras 7.2, 8)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around the recovery of additional power purchase costs incurred by the respondent-DISCOMS due to a change in law affecting the procurement of coal, leading to increased costs and the imposition of a special fuel surcharge on consumers. (Paras 1.1, 2, 2.4, 2.6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that while the original principal amount could be recovered, the interest/carrying costs arising from delayed payments could not be passed on to consumers through the special fuel surcharge. (Paras 11.1, 11.2)

Issues: The primary issues included whether the special fuel surcharge could include interest/carrying costs and the maintainability of writ petitions despite alternative remedies. (Paras 7, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the imposition of the special fuel surcharge on interest was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of law, allowing recovery only on the original principal amount. (Paras 10.8, 11.1)

Result: The petitions were partly allowed, quashing the surcharge on interest/carrying costs while permitting recovery on the original principal amount only.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8901/2023, while treating the same as a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

1.1 The prayer clauses of SBCWP Nos.8901/2023 & 18588/2019 read as under:-

    CW No.8901/2023:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and:-

a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 01.09.2022 in Petition Number 2024/2022 (Annexure-1) and 23.06.2023 in Petition Number 2060/2023 (Annexure-2) passed by Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Respondent No 01) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the consequential order passed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited on 20.09.2022 (Annexure-3) and any order passed by Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited or its officials including Chief Engineer (Comm.) in compliance of the order dated 01.09.2022 in Petition Number 2024/2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondent No.01 may kindly be directed to Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct public hearing in the Petition No.2024/2022 filed by the Rajasthan Discoms for recovery of liability through special Fuel Surcharge Arrangement, giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected consumers including the Petitioner.

d) Pass any such further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

CW No.18588/2019:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition of the petitioner and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

i. The impugned order dated 13006.2019 (Ann-5) passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. The levy of fuel special surcharge on permanently disconnected connection is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and impugned letter dated 27.11.2019 (Ann-7) issued by the respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iii. The petition under section 62(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 88 of R.E.R.C. Tariff Regulation 2014 filed by respondent No.1 and JVVNL may kindly be held to be not maintainable for recovery of weighted average variable cost of all sources of power purchased during period prior to 2013 for permanently disconnected and active connections.

iv. The respondents may kindly be prohibited from taking any further action for levy of fuel special surcharge for further period on the basis of regulation 88 of R.E.R.C. Tariff Regulation 2014 and 2019.

v. It may kindly be held that the regulation 88 of R.E.R.C. Tariff Regulation 2014 and 2019 are prospective in operation and cannot be applied retrospectively for recovery of weighted average variable cost of power purchased during period prior to previous quarter and as approved under tariff order for the year under operation.

vi. Refund the amount of the fuel Special surcharge if any recovered from the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

vi. Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

vii. Costs be quantified in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that M/s.Adani Powers Rajasthan Ltd. (APRL), a power generating Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Rajasthan to implement a coal based thermal power plant at Kawai, District Baran; whereafter, a Power Purchase Agreement was executed between the APRL

                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                1
                                2
                                3
                                4
                                5
                                6
                                7
                                8
                                9
                                10
                                11
                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                supreme today icon
                                logo-black

                                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                Please visit our Training & Support
                                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                qr

                                Scan Me!

                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                whatsapp-icon Back to top