Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)Section 13 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 19 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) vs Director General Health Services on 14 January, 1994
5.10 Furthermore, Hon'ble Madras High Court in Meenakshi Academy
of Higher Education & Research (Deemed University) v.
University Grants Commission (2010) SCC On Line Mad 4906,
following the above stated ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chhavi Mehrohtra v. Director General Health Services, while
dealing with a writ petition challenging provisions of the UGC
(institutions deemed to be universities) Regulations, 2010 held
that once the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the matter
pertaining to the validity of UGC (institutions deemed to be
universities) Regulations, 2010,the hands of the High Court are
tied to deal with the matter any further on merits. The only course
open to the petitioner is to make an appropriate application before
the Supreme Court seeking for a direction for inspection.
Accordingly, the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition as
Page 32 of 45
Judgment of Appeal No.262 of 019
the substance of the matter and the reliefs sought were identical
and were already lying before the Supreme Court.
5.11 The GERC being a state commission is independent in
implementation of its powers vis-à-vis the CERC being the central
commission. CERC admittedly regulates inter-state matters and
GERC on the other hand has its own distinct powers under the
Electricity Act, 2003 to regulate intra-state open access to
electricity, and therefore GERC cannot be compelled to make
regulations in consonance with CERC regulations. It is also
submitted that this Hon'ble APTEL has previously settled the
question raised by the appellant with respect to double charging.
5.12 Before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner's (M/s. OPGS Power
Gujarat Private Ltd) challenge is not restricted to regulations 13 14
and 21 of the said regulations. In fact, the petitioner have in effect
challenged the methodologies set out in the said regulations,
which in sequitur is a challenge to the whole regulation. This
becomes clear from the (iii) substantial question of law of the
Special Leave Petition, which is reproduced herein below: