Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.35 seconds)Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Ors on 30 November, 1984
7. Learned counsel for the DVC vehemently submitted that
the writ petitions of the writ petitioners are misconceived and
are not maintainable also. According to the counsel, remedy of
appeal is available under Section 111 of the Electricity Act,
2003 wherein this interim order also could have been
7
challenged. It is also submitted that it is a matter relating to
quashing of the order fixing interim tariff and by this interim
order final relief has been granted to the writ petitioners
which is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court delivered in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6955,
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dunlop India
Ltd and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 and also
relied upon judgment delivered in the case of United Bank of
India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010)
8 SCC 110, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in
spite of repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High
Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedy.
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
7. Learned counsel for the DVC vehemently submitted that
the writ petitions of the writ petitioners are misconceived and
are not maintainable also. According to the counsel, remedy of
appeal is available under Section 111 of the Electricity Act,
2003 wherein this interim order also could have been
7
challenged. It is also submitted that it is a matter relating to
quashing of the order fixing interim tariff and by this interim
order final relief has been granted to the writ petitioners
which is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court delivered in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6955,
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dunlop India
Ltd and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 and also
relied upon judgment delivered in the case of United Bank of
India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010)
8 SCC 110, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in
spite of repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High
Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedy.
Siliguri Municipality & Others vs Amalendu Das & Others on 6 January, 1984
16. We are making it clear that all above questions which
have been referred above only for the purpose of deciding by
this Court in detail and have been referred because of the
reason that lengthy arguments have been advanced even after
Court's observing that Commission may explore the possibility
to decide the tariff application finally within a period and
when it was put to the learned counsel for the respondent that
the Commission may be directed to decide the tariff finally
within a reasonable time which may be suggested by the
parties but learned counsel for the DVC prayed that only stay
be vacated. We, in view of the reasons mentioned above, are
16
of the view, case is made out for continuation of stay.
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 April, 1976
Learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that there is no requirement of
recording reasons by the Commission before passing the
interim order and in such matters, it is not necessary to give
detailed reasons as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of The Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and
Another reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981.
Union Of India & Anr vs Shaukat Ali on 10 February, 2009
In this situation also, it would
be worthwhile to mention the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent
delivered in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel (Supra), wherein
13
the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principle of
natural justice in detail and it has been held that the right of
hearing can be denied by making statutory provision. Here in
this case two issues are involved, whether because of the
proviso made under Sub-clause 6 of Regulation 2004 the
opportunity of hearing stand excluded for all, including the
party already present before the Commission and filed the
objection to the main petition and such proviso gives power to
the authority to pass the order in any pending matter
irrespective of the fact since when the matter was pending
and irrespective of the fact whether this was appropriate stage
where the interim order should have been granted; Whether
oder should not indicate effect of withdrawal of earlier
application for the same relief by the party itself, necessity of
recording of reason for the order etc. So is also important
because of the reason that as per Section 64 (3) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 the application for final determination is
required to be decided in 120 days. We are of the considered
opinion that the period may not be mandatory as the final
determination of the tariff involves decision on complex
questions of facts but at the same time such provision
indicates that the matter is required to be decided
expeditiously by the Commission and in this case in the matter
which was pending for more than 1½ years, all of a sudden an
order was passed on an application without indicating as to at
whose instance and why this order was passed by the
Commission so as to fixing the liability upon the consumers.
All these issues are required to be considered. So far as the
reason given by the authorities for increasing the tariff is only
14
"after carrying out due prudence check, we allow the
provisional annual fixed charges for the period 2009-14 in
respect of the generation, transmission and other assets as
stated overleaf." This is the only reason coming from the
impugned order given by the Commission for passing interim
order fixing the interim tariff. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioners drew our attention to paragraph 8 of the impugned
order wherein it has been indicated that the petitioners were
directed to file separate petitions for each of its generating
stations and transmission system in accordance with the
Regulation 4 of the 2009 Regulations and with the help of this,
it has been submitted that there was no petition properly filed
before the Commission for the purpose of determining the
tariff yet interim relief has been granted.
Ptc India Ltd vs Central Electricity Reg. Comm. ... on 15 March, 2010
11. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of law and
judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties, the
Regulations and the Electricity Act as well as the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of PTC India
Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 603, wherein it has been held that
validity of the Regulations framed by the Commission cannot
10
be challenged in appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity
Act which is under challenge in this writ petition. Be that as it
may be, learned counsel for the respondent-DVC also did not
press this point that the Regulation framed by the Commission
can be challenged in appeal under Section 111 of the
Electricity Act.