Punjab-Haryana High Court
Apex Chamber Of Commerce & Industry ... vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 26 September, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-10644-2010
Date of decision:-26.09.2013
Apex Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Punjab)
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate (Amicus-Curiae).
Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, namely, Apex Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Punjab has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to lay a challenge to clauses 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2007 framed by respondent No. 1/Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) to the extent it authorizes a licensee to frame conditions of supply as the same would be ultravires of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The sequitur relief claimed is of quashing the conditions of supply annexed as Annexure P3 as being violative of the provisions of the said Act.
We have examined the controversy in the context to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned Amicus Curiae.
It is not disputed before us by any of the parties that in order to have an enforceable action against any consumer the authority must be derived from the provisions of the said Act or the regulations framed under Section 181 of the said Act as per the procedure prescribed. In that context, CWP-10644-2010 2 learned Amicus Curiae has rightly pointed out that there is in fact no sub- delegation under clause 3, which is sought to be assailed, as clause 3.2 only requires the licensee to submit the conditions of supply for approval of the Commission i.e. the final power vests with the Commission and only administrative act to make the conditions of supply was assigned. There is, thus, no sub-delegation as it has to come back to the Commission for final approval.
The question, however, arises as to what are these conditions of supply. Learned Amicus Curiae sought to contend before us that the conditions of supply may not independently have a force of law, as they appear to be an amalgam of different aspects i.e. most conditions deal with aspects under which the source of power is with regulations or they may be under different sections, but for some at least he could not locate the source to any of the aforesaid. It would always be open to the respondents to enforce those conditions by indicating their source to the provisions of the said Act or regulations framed thereunder. He has, however, hastened to add that in order to have a regulation to have a source of law it should have been placed at the floor of the House and notified.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, in fact, does not dispute the aforesaid proposition, but canvasses that the said Act which came into force in 2003 was preceded by the earlier Act of 1948 and there were certain norms in force under the older Act. He submits that the conditions of supply are really in the nature of a compilation to assist both the consumers and the supplier companies to understand the scope of their rights and obligations and facilitate distribution. These conditions of supply, learned counsel contends, are not in supercession or derogation of the powers under the said Act or regulations and to support the said submission has drawn our attention to condition 53 which reads as under:-
53. "Interpretation These conditions will be read and construed as being subject, in all respects, to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Supply Code or any modification thereof and to the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and nothing contained in these conditions will abridge or prejudice the rights of the Board and the consumer under any other Central or State Act or Rules made thereunder."CWP-10644-2010 3
He, thus, fairly concedes that if any action is to be taken against any consumer, the required notice would not be under the conditions of supply for any infringement, but for infringing any provisions of the said Act or regulations framed thereunder or tariff order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner faced with the aforesaid situation submits that he cannot have any surviving grievance when the aforesaid principle is accepted by respondent No. 1/Commission, specifically, as we are dealing with the generality of the proposition in the present case and are not concerned with any individual notice issued to any consumer under the said Act, regulation or the tariff order.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. We have placed on record the note submitted by learned Amicus Curiae dealing with each of the conditions of supply and their per se source and appreciate the assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 26.09.2013 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2013.10.03 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh