Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(h) that the Appellant's contention with respect to violation of principle of natural justice is that "For the year 2013-14, the State Commission has passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 determining the tariff payable by the consumers at large in the State of West Bengal. According to the Tariff Regulations of the State Commission, a composite application for the control period shall be made and the stakeholders comments and suggestions are to be invited against such composite application for tariff determination.

The Appellant has also chosen to not disclose the fact that TP-53/11-12 was filed as a composite application for determination of ARR and Tariff for each ensuing year of 3rd control period and the stakeholders comments/objection in TP-53/11-12 were invited vide publication, dated 10.04.2012, itself. The Appellant had thereon submitted its comments on 14.5.2012 to the Respondent Commission. Thus, a mere glance of Judgment in Appeal No. 77 of 2014 publication, dated 10.4.2012, establishes beyond doubt that the requirement under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 2.5 of the State Commission's Regulations, 2011 were satisfied by the distribution licensee and the tariff determination process was conducted by the State Commission in a transparent manner. Thus, the Appellant had submitted its objections to the composite tariff application, being TP-53/11-12, and the State Commission had considered the objections of the Appellant while passing the MYT Order, dated 1.12.2012, which has attained finality. However, in the MYT Order, dated 1.12.2012, the Petition was erroneously noted as TP 53/12-13, which was subsequently corrected by the State Commission vide its corrigendum, dated 5.12.2012. Therefore, there was no occasion for the State Commission to seek further objections from the stakeholders.

Judgment in Appeal No. 77 of 2014

19. We find that according to the Tariff Regulations, 2011, a composite application for the control period shall be made and the stakeholders comments and suggestions are to be invited against such composite application for tariff determination. The distribution licensee filed the petition being Case No. TP-53/11-12 as a composite application for determination of ARR and Tariff for each ensuing year of 3rd control period and the stakeholders comments/objection in the said petition were invited vide publication, dated 10.04.2012, itself. The Appellant then had submitted its comments on 14.5.2012 to the State Commission. Thus, the State Commission had considered the objections of the Appellant while passing the MYT Order, dated 1.12.2012, which attained finality. We, further, hold that the State Commission, vide impugned order, dated 26.12.2013, has merely provided the tariff design for which the petition was already filed in March 2012, and objections/comments were invited on 10.04.2012, and the procedure provided under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was completely followed. The same figures have been adopted by the State Commission for determining the tariff for the 3rd/last year of the MYT period namely; 2013-14, in the impugned order, which have been derived from the MYT order, dated 1.12.2012. Therefore, the Appellant cannot now legally challenge the tariff determination on merits, which essentially gives effect to the findings recorded in the MYT order, dated 1.12.2012, wherein the State Commission had also worked out the amounts to be allowed as per ARR of 2013-14.

Judgment in Appeal No. 77 of 2014

22. In view of the above, we find that there is no violation of the principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order. No fresh public notice or fresh opportunity of hearing was required to be given by the State Commission. A composite application/petition was filed by the distribution licensee for MYT period of three years namely; 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the learned State Commission, vide the MYT order, dated 1.12.2012, had determined the ARR for each year of the MYT period and determined the tariff for the first two years. By the impugned order, the learned State Commission having adopted the same facts and figures as determined in ARR for 2013-14, has provided tariff design and determined the tariff for the next tariff year namely; FY 2013- 14 of the MYT period. In such situation, the State Commission is not mandated to re-undergo or readopt the methodology provided under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 while adopting the same norms and figures particularly when the tariff remains the same. In view of the above, the sole issue is decided against the Appellant and this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.