Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. L.I. Parija and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 519-524 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8481-8486 of 2003)
(From the Judgment and Orders dated 3.2.2003 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Case Nos. 7410 & 8953 of 2002, dated 7.3.2003 in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2003 and dated 14.3.2003 in O.J.C. No. 6751 of 2001 & Misca. Case Nos. 414 & 580 of 2003)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8481-8486 of 2003)
(From the Judgment and Orders dated 3.2.2003 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Case Nos. 7410 & 8953 of 2002, dated 7.3.2003 in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2003 and dated 14.3.2003 in O.J.C. No. 6751 of 2001 & Misca. Case Nos. 414 & 580 of 2003)
Petitioner: Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission
Respondent: L.I. Parija and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 519-524 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8481-8486 of 2003)
(From the Judgment and Orders dated 3.2.2003 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Case Nos. 7410 & 8953 of 2002, dated 7.3.2003 in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2003 and dated 14.3.2003 in O.J.C. No. 6751 of 2001 & Misca. Case Nos. 414 & 580 of 2003)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8481-8486 of 2003)
(From the Judgment and Orders dated 3.2.2003 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Case Nos. 7410 & 8953 of 2002, dated 7.3.2003 in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2003 and dated 14.3.2003 in O.J.C. No. 6751 of 2001 & Misca. Case Nos. 414 & 580 of 2003)
Judges: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 16, 2006
Appearances:
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Mr. R.K. Talwar, Mr. Amit Talwar, Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra and Ms. N. Annapoorni, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Mr. R.K. Talwar, Mr. Amit Talwar, Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra and Ms. N. Annapoorni, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE / CONTEMPT LAW
Electricity tariff – Fixation of – In a writ against tariff fixation High Court making an interim order restraining the Electricity Commission from fixing the tariff for the years 2002-2004 – Subsequently court recalling the restraint order but keeping the matter open for monitoring the action of the Commission. Held since after the recall of the restraint order the Commission had fixed the tariff and the charges were being collected accordingly, the writ became infructuous and therefore the procedure adopted by the High Court in keeping the matter open was unwarranted. Contempt notice issued by High Court quashed. (Para 3)
Electricity tariff – Fixation of – In a writ against tariff fixation High Court making an interim order restraining the Electricity Commission from fixing the tariff for the years 2002-2004 – Subsequently court recalling the restraint order but keeping the matter open for monitoring the action of the Commission. Held since after the recall of the restraint order the Commission had fixed the tariff and the charges were being collected accordingly, the writ became infructuous and therefore the procedure adopted by the High Court in keeping the matter open was unwarranted. Contempt notice issued by High Court quashed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals were essentially directed against the interim orders passed by the Orissa High Court directing, in essence, restraining the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) -appellant herein from taking steps in the matter of fixation of tariff for the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us an order dated 02.09.2003 in Misc. Case Nos. 1380 and 1805 of 2003 by which the earlier orders were modified and the Commission was permitted to decide on the question of fixation of tariff for the aforesaid two periods. The writ petitioners before the High Court, who are respondent nos. 2 to 13 in these appeals have not appeared in spite of service of notice. From the order dated 02.09.2003, it is clear that the High Court virtually recalled the order of restraint on the exercise of power of the Commission. But at the same time, the High Court has kept the matters pending for the purpose of monitoring the action of the Commission. We find these orders to be rather strange. The interim orders passed by the High Court restraining the Commission from exercising its functions are indefensible. After the High Court had permitted the Commission to take necessary decision, the tariff for the two periods. It is also not disputed that levy is being made on the basis of tariff so fixed. It is not in dispute that correctness of the tariff fixed can be questioned before the prescribed form, as provided in the Orissa Electricity Reform, Act, 1994. That being so, there was no necessity for the High Court to keep the writ petitions pending. As the Commission has already taken decisions, the tariffs have been fixed and levys are being made, nothing further needs to be done in these appeals accept directing the High Court to treat the Writ Petition as having become infructuous. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. In view of this order, the notice of contempt issued by the High Court and the contempt proceedings stand quashed.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals were essentially directed against the interim orders passed by the Orissa High Court directing, in essence, restraining the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) -appellant herein from taking steps in the matter of fixation of tariff for the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us an order dated 02.09.2003 in Misc. Case Nos. 1380 and 1805 of 2003 by which the earlier orders were modified and the Commission was permitted to decide on the question of fixation of tariff for the aforesaid two periods. The writ petitioners before the High Court, who are respondent nos. 2 to 13 in these appeals have not appeared in spite of service of notice. From the order dated 02.09.2003, it is clear that the High Court virtually recalled the order of restraint on the exercise of power of the Commission. But at the same time, the High Court has kept the matters pending for the purpose of monitoring the action of the Commission. We find these orders to be rather strange. The interim orders passed by the High Court restraining the Commission from exercising its functions are indefensible. After the High Court had permitted the Commission to take necessary decision, the tariff for the two periods. It is also not disputed that levy is being made on the basis of tariff so fixed. It is not in dispute that correctness of the tariff fixed can be questioned before the prescribed form, as provided in the Orissa Electricity Reform, Act, 1994. That being so, there was no necessity for the High Court to keep the writ petitions pending. As the Commission has already taken decisions, the tariffs have been fixed and levys are being made, nothing further needs to be done in these appeals accept directing the High Court to treat the Writ Petition as having become infructuous. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. In view of this order, the notice of contempt issued by the High Court and the contempt proceedings stand quashed.
