Judicature Of Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Electricity Act, 2003 ss. 110, 113
- Constitution of India arts. 19(1)(g), 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the action of the 1st respondent in not establishing the Tribunal as contemplated under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as violative of the principles of natural justice and further declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in revising the purchasing rate of the Electrical Energy through its order dated 20-03- 2004 in RP No.84/2003 in OP.No.1025/2000 with a drastic reduction from the prevailing tariff without considering the Objections and the scientific data supplied by the Petitioner and other non-conventional units, and even in negation of the recommendations of the 3rd respondent, the expert body, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of promissory estoppel besides being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the established judicial procedents, and consequently set aside the order dated 20-03-2004of the 2nd respondent with a direction to the 1st respondent to establish the Appellate Electricity Tribunal as was envisaged under Section 113 of the Electricity Act, 2003 The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court dated made in and upon hearing the arguments of
Mr. Advocate for the Petitioner and for the Respondents No. 2 & 3, for the Respondents. The Court made the following
ORDER :
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 110 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, respondent no.1-Central Government is undr an obligation to establish an Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear appeals against the orders of respondent No.2-Electricity Regulatory Commission, and inasmuch as no Appellate Tribunal has been established by respondent No.1- Central Government, the petitioners are left with no remedy, except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the orders of respondent no.2-Electricity Regulatory Commission. The learned Staing Counsel for Central Government took notice for responent No.1-Cental Government sought time to get instructions as to the date by which the Appellate Tribunal could be established. The learned Standing Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 took notice, and sought time to file counter. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that failure to constitute the Appellate Tribunal has deprived the petitioners of their statutory right of appea. He further contends that if the new tariff order is enforced, the petitioners wil have no close down their unit. In the above circumstances, I consider it appropriate to make the following order; For a period of three weeks, respondent No.3 shall continue to pay to the petitioner for the power supplied by the as per the tariff existing prior to 1-4-2004. It is needless to mention that any difference of amount, between the old and new tariff, paid by respondent No.3 to the petitioner by virtue of this interim order, can always be adjusted by respondent No.3 against the future bills of the petitioners , in the event the writ petition is dismissed. List the matter along with W.P.No.7599 of 2004.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // To for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Electricity Act, 2003 — ss. 110, 113; Constitution of India — arts. 19(1)(g), 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Apr 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.