Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Cipla Limited And Anr vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 9 November, 2022

Author: Gauri Godse

Bench: G.S. Patel, Gauri Godse

                                                                         5-OSWPL-33240-2022.DOC




                      Shephali



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                     WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 33240 OF 2022


                      CIPLA Ltd & Anr                                            ...Petitioners
                            Versus
                      Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd        ...Respondents
                      & Anr


                      Mr Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, with Karl Tamboly, Aniket
                           Prasoon, Kausar Banatwala, Priyank Kapaida, Akash Lamba,
                           Yash Dhakad, Rishabh Bhardwaj & Ashmita Salecha, i/b Tushar
                           A Goradia Advocates, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, with Rahul Sinha, i/b DSK
                           Legal, for Respondent No. 1.
                      Mr Ratnakar Singh, for Respondent No. 2.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2022.11.09
14:35:54 +0530
                                               CORAM         G.S. Patel &
                                                             Gauri Godse, JJ.

                                               DATED:        9th November 2022
                      PC:-

1. We do not believe that our interference is called for in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The two Petitioners, CIPLA and Orient Cement are both consumers of power from Captive Power Plants. The grievance in this Writ Petition is against an application made by the 1st Respondent, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Page 1 of 3 9th November 2022 5-OSWPL-33240-2022.DOC ("MSEDCL"), to the 2nd Respondent, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission ("MERC"). On this application, the Commission has recently issued notice (page 604). The two notices are dated 22nd August 2022.

2. In essence, MSEDCL's stand is that certain surcharges, specifically a cross subsidy surcharge and an additional surcharge are applicable to captive consumers such as the Petitioners, or, in other words, the Petitioners are not exempt from these surcharges merely on account of the fact that they are captive consumers of power. Mr Jagtiani for the Petitioners maintains that the stand of MSEDCL is wholly incorrect. More fundamentally, he contends that MERC has no jurisdiction to entertain any such application from MSEDCL.

1. We are aware that the powers of Writ Court under Article 226 are indeed wide. But this does not mean that these powers must be used or that orders of restraint must be granted in every single case. We say this because it seems to us obvious that MERC is fully empowered in law to decide all questions of its own jurisdiction. We have no doubt that it will hear the Petitioners on an appropriate schedule. All contentions are of course left open, including the question of jurisdiction. At present there is no decision, properly so called, that can be said to be assailed in this Writ Petition. Hence, no relief.

9th November 2022 5-OSWPL-33240-2022.DOC

3. We dismiss the Writ Petition with these observations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

(Gauri Godse, J)                                     (G. S. Patel, J)




                                Page 3 of 3
                            9th November 2022