ORDER

Rafiq, C.J. -- 1. This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 14.6.2021 passed by the leaned Single Judge, by which Writ Petition No.5851/2021 filed by the appellant challenging the action of the respondent No.2 in proceeding to determine the electricity tariff of year 2021-2022 without giving an opportunity of hearing to him, has been dismissed.

2. Appellant/writ-petitioner approached the writ Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2-M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short “the Commission”) to decide his preliminary objections and provide him a copy of the petition and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing, to decide the matter finally. The learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the respondents on 16.3.2021 restrained the respondent No.2-Commission from passing final order in Public Notice (Petition No.5/2021), Reference No.MPERC/2021/265 in respect of ARR and Tariff till next date of hearing. Respondents joined the writ petition and submitted their reply refuting the averments of the writ petition.

3. Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not correctly analysed the provisions of section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act of 2003”) and Regulation 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff for Supply and Wheeling of Electricity and Methods and Principles for Fixation of Charges) Regulations, 2015 (for short “the MPERC Regulations, 2015”), which in fact mandated the Regulatory Authority to provide opportunity of hearing to those who file suggestions/objections. It is argued that the appellant applied for obtaining copy of the petition filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 on 3.3.2021, but the Commission provided him copy of the petition belatedly i.e. on 31.3.2021. However, by that time, 8.3.2021, the date for filing objection, had gone. Even though the appellant filed his preliminary objections but he could file a detailed objection only after receiving copy of the petition. It is submitted that the appellant also checked the website of the Regulatory Commission but he could not find copy of the petition uploaded and only annexures thereof were available on the website. Such fact was asserted in Para 5.12 of the memorandum of Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. reported as (2002) 8 SCC 715 and argued that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that when the statute itself confers a right of hearing to consumers in conformity with the principles of natural justice, the Court cannot deny such right on the ground of practical inconvenience. Reference, in particular, is made to discussion in para 40 of the aforesaid judgment.

4. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge has not only properly considered the cited judgment of the Supreme Court but also correctly analysed the ratio thereof. On that basis, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that as provided in Regulation 12 of the MPERC Regulation, 2015, the Commission may, if it considers necessary, conduct hearing of the stakeholders on their suggestions and objections. Appellant had filed his objections styled as ‘preliminary objections’ with the Commission and that the Commission had given due consideration to his objections. In the reply filed by the respondents, the assertion of the appellant has been categorically refuted that copy of the petition filed by the respondents No.3 and 4/Company was not provided to him. It was asserted that the copy of the petition along with its annexures was made available on 12.2.2021 for information in public on the official website of the MPERC as well as official website of the Commission, both in English and Hindi Language, by provid