Supreme Court of India · 2012

y should surffer for the wrong done by a quasi-judicial body. In view of the pri nciple analogus to actus curiae neminem gravabit, we are of the opinion that bec ause of the unreasonable stand taken by A.P. TRANSCO before the Commission the High Court has issued the directions. (cid:29)

12. In view of above, we are unable to hold that the statutory regulations a re in conflict with the statute itself and the determination of tariff is liab le to be quashed only on the ground that the order is beyond 120 days from the date of its declaration. The judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable.

13. We are also unable to accept the submission that payment of difference by the petitioner will create hardship to the consumers and on that ground thi s Court may interfere. So long as the generating company is claiming the rate approved by the Commission, which is not under challenge, mere hardship canno t be a ground to interfere by this Court. The issue of time required for paym ent is between the petitioner company and the generating company particularly when both are government companies.

14. In view of above, we do not find any ground to quash the regulations or to interfere with the impugned orders.