Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Power Management ... vs The Madhya Pradesh Electricity ... on 1 August, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 1st OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 564 of 2022
Between:-
MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LTD. (MPPMCL) THROUGH OFFICER
IN CHARGE BLOCK NO.2, SHAKTI BHAWAN,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SINGH-ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI
ASHISH ANAND BARNARD-ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
1. THE MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION (MPERC)
THROUGH SECRETARY 4TH METRO PLAZA,
BITTAN MARKET, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. M/S JHABUA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR 303 AND 307, 3RD FLOOR, ABW
TOWER, M.G. ROAD, GURUGRAM (HARYANA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SUDHIR SHARMA -ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SHRI R. N. SINGH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
HARSHWARDHAN SINGH RAPUT-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
Signature Not VerifiedThis petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed SAN Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.08.01 18:29:34 IST being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the respondent 2 No.1/Commission.
Initially, this Court had entertained the writ petition and vide order dated 04.03.2022 had issued notice to the respondents and in the meanwhile had stayed the effect and operation of the orders dated 18.11.2021 and 18.12.2021 till the next date of hearing. After notice, the respondents have filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As such, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the objection is squarely covered by the decisions rendered in the cases of Jai Prakash Associate Limited vs. M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (2016) (3) MPLJ 349, H.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. H.P. State Electricity Board (2006) 9 SCC 233, Adani Power Limited vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others (2015) 12 SCC 2016, Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755 and in the case of Grasim Industries Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2016) SCC Online MP 1359.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner however disputed that the issue involved in the writ petition is not covered by the aforesaid decisions and also submitted that he has a remedy to file a review under Section 94 (1)(f) of the Act. In the impugned order, there is perversity, therefore he would like to file review petition under Section 94 of the Act.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection, in case Signature Not Verified SAN the petitioner avails the remedy of review under Section 94 of the Act within a Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN period of three weeks from today.
Date: 2022.08.01 18:29:34 IST 3 In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition but relegates the petitioner to avail remedy of review under Section 94 of the Act by filing the same within a period of three weeks from today along with the application for interim relief. If such review petition is filed, the reviewing authority shall consider the application for interim relief and pass such appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. The interim order granted by this Court on 04.03.2022 shall continue till the date of first hearing by the Commission.
With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the question of delay will not come in the way of the petitioner in case the review petition is filed within the aforesaid period.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vinay* Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.08.01 18:29:34 IST