Bombay High Court
Eurotex Industries And Exports Ltd. And ... vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board ... on 18 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)BOMCR801
Author: H.L. Gokhale
Bench: H.L. Gokhale
JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, J.
1. The petitioner No. 1 in the first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 6433 of 1999, claims to be a 100% export oriented unit manufacturing cotton yarn and fabrics at Kolhapur. The petitioner No. 2 is its director. For the purposes of setting up its own Captive Power Plant ("CPP" for short) to ensure stable supply of power to their unit, the petitioners applied in March 1997 to the respondent-Electricity Board followed by subsequent application of 25th November, 1997 in the prescribed form. No Objection Certificate under section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was granted on 7th January, 1998 by the respondent Board. The relevant clauses of this N.O.C. are Clauses A 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, B 1 and 5. They read as follows :-
"A)
1) The proposed 7 M.W. (1 x 3 MW & 1 x 4 MW) captive power plant will be used independently for existing load only. Single line diagram of the proposed arrangements of providing bus coupler and protections etc. may be got approved from E.E. (Testing) M.S.E.B. Kolhapur and S.E. (O&M Circle), Kolhapur.
2) As we are allowing bus coupler arrangement for change over in case of emergency, for any additional load over and above sanctioned load you will have to obtain necessary load sanction and will have to pay S.L.C. (though the load being connected on set) as per rules in force at the time of sanction.
3) .............
4) You will have the liberty to decide the level of your contract demand to the extent you desire after commissioning of the set. For such reduction one month advance intimation may please be given to S.E. (O&M) Circle Kolhapur. In case of increase in connected load/contract demand service line charges as per then existing rules will be payable.
5) If any excess demand is recorded over and above the contract demand which is in force, the excess demand will be charged at thrice the normal demand charges applicable in respective tariff from time to time or as per policy that may be existing at the time of commissioning of your generation plant.
.............
.............
.............
10. The N.O.C. is as per the present policy of board. However, changes, applicable for paralleling interconnection etc. would be governed as per the Board's rules from time to time.
B)
1) Operation of the captive power plant will be governed by the Government directives in force from time to time.
5) You shall not connect any additional load other than the load sanctioned by the Government/Board on your generating set."
2. The initial demand by the petitioners was for two connections in their plot bearing No. E-23 which was granted by the respondents. Unit 1 had the connection for a demand of 3500 KVA whereas Unit 2 had the connection for 1800 KVA totalling 5300 KVA. The petitioners contention is that in terms of the above clauses and particularly Clause (4), they had the option to reduce their consumption after commissioning of their captive power plant subject to their giving one month's advance intimation. The plant was set up at the cost of some eighteen crores and became operational on 28th August, 1998. It is therefore contended that the respondents cannot insist on charging on the initial contract demand. According to the petitioners, if the contract demand is reduced, their liability will be to pay an amount of about Rs. 5 lakhs per month whereas the demand of the respondents comes to Rs. 4 crores per year.
3. As against this, the respondents contend that in view of the initial representation of the petitioners dated 25th November, 1997, the petitioners are not entitled to reduce the contract demand. They submit that the respondents have to keep available the power to the full extent as a standby facility. The respondents rely upon their departmental circulars bearing No. 619 dated 25th May, 1999 and No. 627 dated 2nd September, 1999. As far as the first circular is concerned, in Clause B(1) thereof it is directed that for existing C.P.P. holders, reduction in contract demand is not permitted. As far as the second circular is concerned, in Clause (2) thereof it was directed that those C.P.P. with contract demand of less than 5 MVA will not be permitted reduction in contract demand. The respondents have filed the affidavit of one Mr. Surve, Executive Engineer, Co-ordination Cell, to oppose the submissions made in the petition. The petitioners contend that these circulars are subsequently withdrawn by the respondent board by their Resolution No. 88 dated 17th July, 2001. As far as this controversy with respect to the right of the petitioners to reduce the contract demand is concerned, prayers (a)(ii), (b)(i) and (c)(i) of the petition deal with these submissions.
4. The second contention in this petition is regarding the supply to Unit 3 of the petitioners located on a plot across the road bearing Plot No. E-1 also belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners rely upon certain oral understanding arrived at between them and the Chairman of the respondents in the meeting held on 3rd September, 1999. As against this, the respondents deny that any such permission is granted for laying under ground cables for connecting power supply to unit 3 since the original connection was only for two units. It is contented that in any case the Chairman has no power to give any such assurance and, in any case, the assurance does not bind the Board. Prayers (c)(ii) and (d)(i) of the petition are concerning this particular controversy.
5. The third controversy between the parties is whether the circular No. 627 dated 2nd September, 1999 (Exhibit-T to the petition) has any force of law since, according to the petitioners, it does not have any sanction of any statutory provision of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. As far as this circular is concerned, Clause 3 thereof requires the C.P.P. holders to draw at least 25% of the energy from the respondent board and that for this supply the M.S.E.B. will charge at the rate of 110% of the tariff applicable from time to time. Clause (3) of this circular reads as follows :-
"3) Drawal of power by C.P.P. holder from M.S.E.B.-C.P.P. holders shall draw atleast 25% of energy from M.S.E.B. of their monthly consumption based on preceding 12 months consumption before commissioning of C.P.P. In case of drawal of less quantity from M.S.E.B., they will be billed for 25% of energy as mentioned above. This energy of M.S.E.B. will be charged at the rate of 110% of the tariff applicable from time to time. Demand charges will be as per the tariff in force from time to time."
Prayers (a)(i) and (b)(i) of this petition are concerning this particular controversy.
6. The second petition bearing Writ Petition No. 894 of 2000 also deals with this third element of controversy from the first petition, namely the legality and validity of the circular on 2nd September, 1999 and the prayer in this petition is directed with respect to this particular circular only. The petitioners herein have also set up a similar C.P.P. by spending an amount of around Rs. 9 crores and similar contentions are raised with respect to this circular in support thereof and in rebuttal.
7. The third petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 2109 of 2001, is another petition by a party which has set up a similar C.P.P. and which also seeks to challenge this very circular of 2nd September, 1999. Mr. Jagtiani has appeared for all these petitioners and whereas Mr. Joshi has appeared for respondent Board.
8. The fourth petition filed by National Rayon Corporation, Thane, i.e. Writ Petition No. 5279 of 2002, is also a petition concerning this very circular. This company has also set up its C.P.P. and it is seeking to challenge the legality and validity of this circular. As far as this petition is concerned, a submission is made that the controversy with respect to this circular was initially taken to the Electrical Inspector and the Electrical Inspector decided against the Electricity Board. The matter was carried in appeal to the Minister and in June 2000 the Minister rejected the appeal passed by the Electricity Board. It is submitted that the disputed Circular No. 627 is only a modification of the earlier Circular No. 619. Mr. Dwarkadas with Mr. Dhanuka has appeared for the petitioners. Mr. Joshi has appeared for the respondents.
9. As far as respondents are concerned, they have filed a reply to Writ Petition No. 6433 of 1999 and have a number of things to say in defence of the disputed circular of 2nd September, 1999 which is the common aspect of controversy in all the four matters. With respect to the issues of reduction of the contract demand and shifting of part of the load to factory across the road raised in Writ Petition No. 6433 of 1999, it is the case of the respondents that the actions of the petitioners themselves are illegal and unjustified. But that apart, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that all the controversies which are raised in these four matters are controversies which arise between what are defined as "utilities" under the definition of that concept under section 2(1) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 ("ERC Act" for short). For resolving the disputes and differences between the licensee and utilities (which would include those between utilities and utilities also), a forum has been created under this Act, namely the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. In his submission, the first petitioners in all the matters are utilities and so is the respondent board and the disputes raised in these matters squarely fall within the jurisdiction of that commission which has adequate powers to decide the controversies completely and effectively. That commission being an expert body, it would be proper that the controversies which are raised in the present matters be heard and decided by the commission. This being a submission in the nature of non-exhaustion of an equally efficacious alternative remedy, it is appropriate to examine it before one goes into the merits of the controversies in these matters.
10. Mr. Joshi submitted that under the provisions of the E.R.C. Act and particularly section 22 thereof, the commission is constituted to discharge particular functions, namely (a) to determine the tariff for electricity in the manner provided under section 29(b) to adjudicate upon the disputes and controversies under section 22(2)(n) of the E.R.C. Act. Mr. Joshi also pointed out that the necessary empowering notification under section 22(2) of the E.R.C. Act has been issued by the State Government and gazetted it on 27th October 2000. As far as the concept of utility is concerned, it would include any person or entity engaged in generation, distribution, sale, transmission or supply of energy. As far as this aspect is concerned, Mr. Joshi submitted that the definition is wide enough and is not restricted to disputes concerning only the generating companies, but it is covering all disputes concerning generation and then distribution, sale, transmission and supply of energy.
11. Mr. Joshi then submitted that under sections 52 and 49 of the E.R.C. Act, the Act is given an overriding effect over other Acts excluding the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. This is with a view to have a composite legislation particularly to decide the major controversies and policy matters concerning supply of electricity. The E.R.C. Act would override the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Lastly, Mr. Joshi submitted that the decision of the Commission is made appealable to the High Court under the provisions of section 27(2) of the E.R.C. Act and therefore if a party is aggrieved by the decision of the commission, it can certainly come back to this Court and any error in the decision of the commission can be corrected by resorting to an appeal.
12. Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. Dhanuka, though appearing for the petitioners in the fourth petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 5279 of 2002, accepted this submission of Mr. Joshi that the proper remedy would be to approach the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. They also drew our attention to sections 4 and 75(3) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. Section 4 gives the power to the Central Electricity Authority to require accounts, statistics and return from the licensees or persons generating electricity for their own use also which would include the C.P.P. owner. Section 75(3) also gives similar power to the respondent Board. Mr. Dwarkadas drew our attention to section 29 of the E.R.C. Act and submitted that when it comes to determination of tariff, a non obstante clause was provided under that section and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the fixation of the tariff was to be determined by the commission. This would surely cover the dispute concerning the tariff rate of 110% in certain circumstances under the circular of 2nd September, 1999.
13. Mr. Jagtiani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first three petitions, on the other hand, opposed these submissions and stated that the provisions under the E.R.C. Act will have to be looked at from a different perspective. The definition clause itself states that the definitions therein were to be followed unless the context required otherwise. He submitted that the definition of "utility" deals with persons or entities engaged in the generation and then transmission, sale, distribution or supply of energy. According to him, these activities implied being engaged in the business of generating power and not generation for one's own purposes, as were the facts of the present case, wherein a C.P.P. was set up only for their own benefit by the petitioners. Therefore, in his submission, the petitioners could not be considered as a utility though they did not dispute that the respondent Board was utility. The petitioners will have to be considered at the highest as consumers of power and nothing more. In his submission, the dispute between the Electricity Board and the petitioners arising out of the setting up of the C.P.P. therefore could not be said to be a dispute between two utilities to be governed under the E.R.C. Act, though he did not contest the submission that the disputes and differences between two utilities were also covered under section 22(2)(n) of the E.R.C. Act. In his submission, the concept of "utility" would include only the company generating power for others meaning "generating company" and nothing more. He drew our attention to the last Clause (m) of section 2 of the E.R.C. Act which states that the words and expressions used and not defined under the Act but defined under either Electricity (Supply) Act or the Indian Electricity Act shall have the meanings as assigned to them in those Acts. He therefore took us to the definitions under those Acts. He pointed out the difference between the concepts of "generating company" and "generating station" as obtaining under sub-clauses (4-A) and (5) of section 2 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. For being a generating company, in his submission, it was necessary to have in its objects the establishment, operation and maintenance of generating stations and other qualifications as provided under the Act. The objects of the generating company must be as specified under section 15-A(2) of the Electricity Supply Act and then its Board of Directors ought to have personnel particularly trained in the activities as per section 15-A(5) of this Act. It must also perform the duties as specified under section 18A of this Act. He submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, their objects were not to generate power. They were companies set up for other manufacturing purposes. Power was to be generated by them only as an ancillary requirement since a stable power supply was required. As against that a "generating station" is a different concept and therefore when we look to these concepts, the petitioners cannot fit in the concept of "generation" covered under section 2(1) of the E.R.C. Act. He drew our attention to the provisions of Electricity Act, 2001 which is now under anvil before the Parliament to point out that in the new Act, the captive power plants are treated differently and separately. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that in all these Acts, the term "generation" is invariably followed by the term "transmission, sale, distribution or supply" and therefore it meant a business activity for the purposes of generation of power.
14. Now, when we examine these submissions, we will have to note that the E.R.C. Act has been enacted to constitute the Central and State Regulatory Commissions, rationalisation of electricity tariff and to have transparent policy regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies and all connected matters. It is an Act which covers a wide spectrum of area. When we see the powers and functions of the commission, we find that wide ranging powers are entrusted to this commission. Thus under section 22(2)(b), the commission has the function to aid and advise the Government in the matters concerning electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply of power. Under sub-clause (f) of section 22(2), it can require the licensees to formulate perspective plans and schemes in co-ordination with others for the promotion of generation, etc. Sub-clause (h) requires the commission to promote competitiveness and to make avenues for participation of private sector in the electricity industry and also to ensure a fair deal to the customers. Under sub-clause (m), the commission is to regulate the assets, properties and interest in electricity industry ultimately to safeguard the public interest. It is on this background that under sub-clause (n) it is given the power to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the licensee and the utilities and to refer the matters to the arbitration.
15. As far as the utilities are concerned, before we go to that concept, we must as well see the other concepts, namely that of "licensee" and "transmission utility" which occur in section 2(f) and 2(k) of the E.R.C. Act. The definition of a "licensee" under the E.R.C. Act means a person licensed under Part II of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to supply energy or a person who has obtained sanction under section 28 of that Act to engage in the business of supplying energy. But it does not include the Electricity Board or a generating company. Thus the generating companies are excluded from the concept of "licensee". Then we come to the definition of "transmission utility". It includes generating company, board, the licensee or any person engaged in the transmission of energy. Thus the concept of "transmission utility" is wider than that of a "licensee". Then we have the concept of "utility" which means any person or entity engaged in the generation, transmission, sale, distribution or supply, as the case may be, of energy. Thus the concept of "utility" is still wider than that of the "transmission utility". If the concept of "utility" was to be restricted only to those persons who are engaged in the business of generation, or transmission, sale, etc. of energy, the legislature would have provided that specifically. There is no such specific mention and thus the concept of "utility" is not restricted only to those who are engaged in the generation, transmission, sale, etc. of energy for the purposes of business as is sought to be canvassed by the petitioners. Mr. Jagtiani has submitted that these concepts are to be read as defined unless the context requires otherwise as contained in the opening part of the defining section. However, what is suggested by Mr. Jagtiani will lead to add the words "business of" before the word "generation" and would restrict the definition of "utility" when in fact it is defined in a wider way to cover all other concepts such as that of "transmission utility" or that of "licensee". The interpretation suggested will lead to adding and supplying words so as to reduce the scope of the concept of "utility". This will be contrary to legislative intent. When a commission is constituted to have an overall authority, the legislature wanted to have a concept with widest possible coverage and that is what has been done while defining the concept of "utility".
16. Mr. Jagtiani has also tried to submit that in the definition of "utility", a generating station was not covered. However, the application made by the petitioners themselves was under section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act which sought a permission to set up a generating station under section 44(1) of the Act. When the petitioners themselves had applied for the particular permission under this section, it would not be permissible for them to say that their activity was outside the coverage. In these matters we are concerned with generation of power by the petitioner companies for their use through their generating station. Question is whether this activity on their part would cover them in the definition of "utility". It is sought to be contended that they are not a generating company as defined under the Electricity (Supply) Act. It is no doubt true that to be a generating company one must have a generating station with the object of establishment, operation and maintenance of generating stations. But a company other than a generating company having other objects can also have a generating station as in the present case. The section defining the term "utility" does not provide that for being a "utility" the entity must be a generating company or must be engaged in generating power as a matter of business. If the legislature has purposely used a wider definition, there is no reason to narrow it down. Section 22(1)(c) of the E.R.C. Act which deals with the functions of the commission also recognises the power of the commission to regulate power purchase and procurement process of the transmission utilities and distribution utilities including the price at which the power shall be procured from the generating company, generating station or from other sources for supply, transmission, sale, etc. in the State. This section would surely cover the activities of the C.P.P. which have the generating station for their own purpose.
17. The Regulations framed under section 58 of the E.R.C. Act known as "Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 give all the trappings of a quasi judicial authority to the commission. The proceedings before the commission are regulated by these regulations. It is provided in these regulations as to how the proceedings are to be initiated by filing petitions, then notices of the inquiry to be issued to the respondents, representation of parties, services of notices and processes by the commission, filing of reply, opposition and objections, engaging of representatives on behalf of the parties, hearing of the matters by the commission, procedure to be followed when any party does not appear before the commission, power to pass interim order and even the power to impose costs. There is also a provision for review of the decisions of the commission by making necessary application to the commission when one is aggrieved. Under Regulation 62(1), the commission is supposed to pronounce its judgment in open Court after the hearing is complete. All these are clear trappings of a quasi judicial authority and that is with a view to see to it that the forum decides the list between the parties in accordance with the established procedure which is otherwise accepted in all quasi judicial authorities. In one of the earliest cases, which came up before the Apex Court, while dealing with the grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Veerappa v. Raman & Raman Ltd., observed-
"Thus we have before us a complete and precise scheme for regulating the issues of permits, providing what matters are to be taken into consideration as relevant, and prescribing appeals and revisions from subordinate bodies to higher authorities. The remedies for the redress of grievances or the correction of errors are found in the statute itself and it is to these remedies that resort must generally be had."
Similar is the situation in the present case.
18. In the present case, as we have noted above, the commission has been constituted with wide powers and to decide the disputes and differences between the licensees and the utilities. We have seen the wide scope of the definition of "utility" within which all the petitioners and the Electricity Board would fall. This being the position, in our view, it would be just and proper that an authority constituted for this very purpose ought to first decide the controversies which are sought to be raised in the present petitions. As pointed out above, the common dispute in all these petitions is firstly about the circular of 2nd September, 1999 whereunder a mandatory purchase of power at certain percentage is being insisted on parties which have their own C.P.P. plus a certain tariff is being insisted upon. This should surely be within the scope and power of the commission. As far as the first petition is concerned, there are two additional issues; firstly with respect to the reduction of the contract demand and the facility which the petitioners want to have across the road i.e. the supply which they intend to have to their own plant across the road. The case of the respondent board is that they are required to keep a standby arrangement and hence all these arrangements, whether they are legal or valid, will have to be looked into. In our view, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission surely has the power and the authority to look into all these controversies.
19. Mr. Jagtiani has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, to submit that the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar where there was a question of enforcement of any fundamental right or there was a violation of the principles of natural justice or the proceedings were without jurisdiction and the vires of the Act was challenged. It is not possible to accept this submission since none of these problems have arisen in the present matter. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission would not have jurisdiction to decide the controversies which are raised in these petitions. For the reasons which we have stated earlier, in our view, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission would certainly have jurisdiction and is given all necessary powers to decide the matters effectively. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the submission was this wise that the Electricity Board has no authority to issue the disputed circular and it was outside its jurisdiction. In our view, that would also be a matter which can be gone into by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission which would decide that aspect.
20. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that even if the alternative forum had jurisdiction, it was not necessary that the parties out to be relegated to that forum particularly since the matters involved questions of law. In this connection, the approach adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Bisra Stone Lime Co. v. Orissa State Electricity Board, is quite instructive. The matter involved the question with respect to the powers of the respondent Electricity Board to levy a surcharge in the context of section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act and Clause 13 of the agreement between the parties which agreement provided for arbitration for any dispute difference between the parties under Clause 23 thereof. The Apex Court held in para 24 of the judgment as follows :-
"It is then submitted that this Court should not use its discretion in favour of arbitration in a matter where it is a pure question of law as to the power of the board to levy a surcharge. This submission would have great force if the sole question involved were the scope and ambit of the power of the Board under sections 49 and 59 of the Act to levy a surcharge, as it was sought to be initially argued. The question in that event may not have been within the content of Clause 23 of the agreement. But all questions of law, one of which may be interpretation of the agreement, need not necessarily be withdrawn from the domestic forum because the Court has discretion under section 34 of the Arbitration Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Court is better posted to decide such questions. The arbitration Clause 23 is a clause of wide amplitude taking in its sweep even interpretation of the agreement and necessarily, therefore, of Clause 13 therein. We are therefore, unable to accede to the submission that we should exercise our discretion to withhold the matter from arbitration and deal with it ourselves."
21. Mr. Jagtiani then submitted that since these petitions were being heard finally, this Court ought to decide the matters on their merits and should not send them to the alternative forum. In this behalf, it is necessary to note that these petitions came to be admitted by another Division Bench obviously since they involved arguable points. As far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it was not an issue which could be decided at the admission stage itself one way or the other. It required a detailed consideration of the provisions of the E.R.C. Act, 1998, the regulations framed thereunder along with the provisions of other relevant statutes. Besides, it is also material to note that these petitions have reached earlier for final hearing since they were expedited. In this view of the matter, we cannot refuse to examine the submission raised on behalf of the respondents that there is an alternative specialised forum which provides for an effective alternative remedy, merely because the petitions are being heard finally. We have examined the objection raised by the respondents and, as stated above, it deserves acceptance.
22. For the reasons stated above, in our view, it would be just and proper that the petitioners file their petitions before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission which, in our view, will be wholly competent to decide the controversies raised in the present matters.
23. Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Dhanuka submit that the petitioners will require six weeks to file petitions before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. They may do so within that period. In the event, the petitions are so filed, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission will issue necessary notices and will endeavour to decide the petitions within 3 months thereafter.
24. When the first three petitions were admitted a statement was made by Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondents, that the respondents will not disconnect the supply of power to the petitioners unit. That factual position has continued till date and the supply of power to all the petitioners has not been discontinued. As far as the petitioners in the fourth petition are concerned, their power supply was discontinued for sometime, but after deposit of the requisite amount, the power supply was restored. We therefore direct the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to all the four petitioners for a period of four and half months hereafter within which time the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is expected to decide the petitions to be filed before it. We however make it clear that in the event these petitions are not filed within 6 weeks hereof before the M.E.R.C. the stay will stand vacated. This stay will continue to be available to the petitioners for a further period of 4 weeks after the decision of the commission in the event decision goes against the petitioners. The stay granted will be confined to the amounts claimed by the respondent board in these petitions. We however make it clear that if for any reason the petitions to be filed are not decided within 3 months after their filing, it will be open to the petitioners to apply for extension of stay and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission will consider those applications appropriately.
25. In the fourth petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 5279 of 2002, there is an additional issue with respect to the bills and the correctness thereof. It will be open to the parties to settle it by negotiations, failing which whatever remedies are available to them in law can be availed of.
26. All the petitions are accordingly disposed of. Rules stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
27. Parties and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission to act on an authenticated copy being produced. Certified copy is expedited.
28. Mr. Jagtiani applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Joshi opposes the request. The request is rejected.