Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Balmukund Concast Limited vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 17 January, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14527 of 2010
M/S SHIVA POLY TUBES PVT.LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.14801 of 2010
M/S PATLIPUTRA GASES LIMITED
Versus
THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
with
CWJC No.14795 of 2010
M/S BIHAR INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Versus
THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
with
CWJC No.14905 of 2010
M/S BALMUKUND CONCAST LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.14556 of 2010
M/S PATWARI UDYOG
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
For the Petitioners:- Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Samdarsi, Adv.
Mr. Raju Giri, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv.
Mr. Srinandan Prasad, Adv.
-----------
5. 17.01.2011Despite the matter having been taken up twice on 7.9.2010 and 20.9.2010, no counter affidavit has been filed in these cases on behalf of the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the 'Commission'). A solitary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board in C.W.J.C. No. 14795 of 2010 only.
2The petitioners essentially question the decisions of the Commission which are to be implemented by the Electricity Board.
The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14795 of 2010, is stated to have preferred a statutory review under Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the decision dated 30.3.2010 and 19.5.2010 of the Commission with regard to fuel and power purchase cost adjustment charges ( FPPCA) for the period October, 2008 to March, 2009 and April, 2009 to September, 2009.
If a statutory review has been filed, the authority concerned is bound in law to deal with and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.
In view of the pendency of the statutory review, there is no occasion for the Court to delve into the merits of the matter at this stage, on any aspect including that of the objection of any alternative remedies. These are matters which may come up for appropriate consideration at a subsequent stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interim relief in I. A. No. 152 of 2011 pending disposal of the review application. Strong reliance is 3 placed on a communication no. 3620 of the energy department dated 6.9.2010 directing that no bills be issued levying fuel surcharge for the period in light of the order dated 30.3.2010 and 19.5.2010 passed by the Commission.
In absence of any counter affidavit by the Commission and a bald denial by the State Electricity Board that the order of the State Government dated 6.9.2010 no more subsists, the inability of the State counsel to assist the Court for lack of instructions on the communication dated 6.9.2010, I.A. No. 152 of 2011 is disposed with the directions to the Commission that if the petitioners file any application for interim relief, pending disposal of the review application in light of the Government instruction referred to, it is required to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt and/or presentation of such application along with a copy of this order before the Commission.
Let the Commission dispose off the statutory review preferably within a maximum period of four weeks.
Liberty is also granted to those writ 4 petitioners who have not filed a review application to do so when any application for interim relief on their behalf is also required to be considered in like manner. It is expected that the parties shall not precipitate matters unnecessarily by either positive or negative actions.
List at the same position after four weeks.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)