(23.06.2021)

Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice:

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

---2---

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, 08.03.2021, 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

---3---

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 Vs. 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,