Delhi High Court - Orders
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 19 February, 2019
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1717/2019, C.M. APPL.7912-7913/2019
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Sh. Anupam Varma,
Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Sh. Aditya Gupta and Ms.
Deepika Kalia, Advocates.
versus
DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Prashant Bhardwaj, for Ms. Pratima.
K. Gupta, Standing Counsel, for Respondent No.1.
Sh. Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel with Sh.
Dhananjay Misra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 19.02.2019 Issue notice. Sh. Prashant Bhardwaj and Sh. Ramesh Singh, Advocates accept notice.
The petitioner has challenged the amendment to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 [hereafter "the amendment Regulations"], through third amendment which has introduced a new Regulation 76. The Preamble to the amendment Regulations indicates that the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) [hereafter "the Commission"] invoked its Page 1 of 3 powers under Sections 46, 50, 57 and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereafter "the Act"]. The petitioner complains that these amendment Regulations did not follow the statutory conditions mandated under Section 57, but rather directions issued under Section 108. It is submitted that even in the earlier Supply Code Regulations, when the Commission wished to formulate a new framework, draft Regulations were put up and comments or objections were invited from all stakeholders, including the discoms, one of whom is the petitioner. It is submitted that the failure to adhere to the statutorily prescribed norms for the framing of the Regulations renders them unenforceable and ultra vires. It is urged that the amendment Regulations are unworkable at least in some parts and gives hardly any time to comply with the minimum standards now stipulated.
Learned counsel for the GNCTD opposed the petition and contended that the amendment Regulations are legal and valid. It is pointed out that the amendment Regulations were framed in public interest which is a paramount consideration under Section 108 of the Act, under which the government issues directions, and were framed by exercise of the common regulation making power under Section 181 of the Act.
This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Prima facie what the GNCTD seems to be suggesting is that the route adopted by it by issuing Regulations under Section 108 can in fact supersede the mechanism envisioned in other provisions of the Electricity Act, especially Section 57, which casts an obligation on Page 2 of 3 the appropriate Commission to undertake a consultative process before framing such regulations.
In view of these contentions, and given the nature and the short time limit as opposed to the earlier regulations, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents should not take any coercive action under the amendment Regulations during the pendency of the proceedings. Likewise, in complaints contemplated by the amendment Regulations, no final decision shall be taken. In the meanwhile, the claims made may be processed in accordance with the pre-existing regulations which would operate. The complaints received from consumers shall be processed and appropriate orders made but enforced only having regard to the earlier regulations. However, in the event the amendment Regulations are upheld, the additional compensation, if any, shall be paid to the concerned consumers by the concerned discoms subject to the final outcome of the present proceeding.
List on 06.05.2019. Counter affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. On the next date of hearing, the concerned official files of the GNCTD and the DERC which led to the directions under Section 108 culminating in the amendment Regulations shall be produced in Court.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 19, 2019/ajk