Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Torrent Power Limited vs Union Of India & 2 on 17 October, 2014

Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria

         C/SCA/14604/2014                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14604 of 2014

     [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 14/10/2014 in
                                C/SCA/14604/2014 ]

================================================================
                  TORRENT POWER LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
                   UNION OF INDIA & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIL M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
                VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
                and
                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                                 Date : 17/10/2014


                                  ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) At the end of paragraph-4 of the order dated 14th October, 2014, the following words "within a period of one month" shall be added.

The note for speaking to minutes stands disposed of.

(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) Page 1 of 2 1 of 4 C/SCA/14604/2014 ORDER (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pirzada Page 2 of 2 2 of 4 C/SCA/14604/2014 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 14604 of 2014 ============================================= TORRENT POWER LIMITED....Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA  &  2....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance:

MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR SALIL M THAKORE,  ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY  MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA   Date : 14/10/2014   ORAL ORDER     (PER   :   HONOURABLE   THE   ACTING   CHIEF   JUSTICE   MR.   VIJAY  MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We   have   heard   Mr.   Mihir   Thakore,   learned   Senior   Counsel  assisted by Mr. Salil M. Thakore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Rule returnable on 25th November 2014. 
3. In   this   petition,   the   petitioner   has   challenged   the   vires   of   the  provisos   to   Regulation   5   (2)   of   the   Petroleum   and   Natural   Gas  Regulatory   Board   (Determination   of   Natural   Gas   Pipeline   Tariff)  Regulations, 2008 on the ground that the respondents cannot charge the  tariff   retrospectively   that   too   without   hearing   the   petitioner.     The  learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   placed   reliance   on   two  decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Regional Transport Officer,  Chittoor & Ors. v. Associated Transport Madras (P.) Ltd. & Ors. [(1980)  Page 1 of 2

3 of 4 C/SCA/14604/2014 ORDERSCC 597] and Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak v. Jahan Singh  [(2007) 5 SCC 77]. 

4. We, prima facie, found force in the submission of learned Senior  Counsel   for   the   petitioner   and   therefore   we   have   issued   rule   to   the  respondents.   So   far   as   interim   relief   is   concerned,   according   to   the  petitioner, as per the retrospective tariff, an amount of approximately  Rs.49   crores   is   to   be   paid   by   the   petitioner   to   the   respondent   No.3,  whereas, the petitioner has already paid Rs.7 crores out of the amount of  Rs.49   crores.   Interest   of   justice   would   be   served   if   we   direct   the  petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20 crores to the respondent No.3 and  the balance amount of approximately Rs.22 crores shall remain stayed.  Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.20 crores to the  respondent No.3. 

5. The amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 or  the amount already deposited with  the respondent No.3 also shall be  subject to the decision of this writ petition. 

6.   In case the petitioner makes the deposit as directed above, the  retrospectivity   of   the   impugned   order   dated   11.07.2014   shall   remain  stayed so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner shall continue  to pay the tariff as demanded by the respondents with effect from 11 th  July 2014 onwards which shall also abide by the decision of this petition. 

(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.)  (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)  Jani Page 2 of 2 4 of 4