Boya Srinivasulu vs Kantilal Dande,Ias
2023 Latest Caselaw 4895 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

               CONTEMPT CASE NO. 4462 of 2023

ORDER:

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders dated

12.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12362 of

2023 have been complied with and the authorities have paid the

amount to the petitioner. Hence, nothing remains for adjudication

in this Contempt Case and the same may be closed.

In view of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 11th October, 2023 RR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CONTEMPT CASE No. 4462 of 2023

11th October, 2023

RR

wherein is held as follows:

"102. The Commission constituted under Section 17 of the 1998 Act is an expert body and the determination of the tariff which has to be made by Commission involves a very highly technical procedure, requiring working knowledge of law, engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management. It would be more appropriate and effective if a statutory appeal is provided to a similar expert body, so that the various questions which are factual and technical that arise in such an appeal, get appropriate consideration in the first appellate stage also. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission which has a judicial member as also a number of other members having varied qualifications is better equipped to appreciate the technical and factual questions involved in appeals arising from the orders of the Commission. Neither the High Court not the Supreme Court would in reality is appropriate appellate forums in dealing with this type of factual and technical matters."

at paragraph 12 reads as under:

"12. Looking to the observations made by this Court to the effect that the Central Commission constituted under Section 3 of the Act is an expert body which has been entrusted with the task of determination of tariff and as determination of tariff involves highly technical procedure requiring not only working knowledge of the law but also of the engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management, this Court was firmly of the view that the issues with regard to determination of tariff should be left to the said expert body and originally the High Court and even this Court should not interfere with the determination of tariff."

With regard to the power of Judicial Review under Article 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar

Ranibala1 para 86 reads as under:

"86. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or reasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-assess or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of law."

With regard to the interest claim of the petitioner learned

Advocate General relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. Madhya

Pradesh State Electricity Board 2 , paragraph 31 of the said

judgment reads as under:

(2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 143

(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 580

"31. It is true that there was delay in the process of determination of the tariff. We are informed that the Commission became functional only on 15-05-1999. NTPC had filed the tariff petitions duly as required by the Central Commission. The delay in the case of Kawas and Gandhar Power Stations was because of the Commission requiring them to appropriately devise norms and parameters. As far as Rihand Station is concerned, one of the beneficiaries, namely, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., had obtained stay of proceedings before the Commission from the High court of Rajasthan. NTPC was not in any way responsible for these factors. Ultimately, the tariff was reduced, but the tariff charged by NTPC in the meanwhile was in accordance with the rates permitted under the notifications issued by the Commission. It cannot, therefore, be said that NTPC had held on the excess amount in an unjust way to call it unjust enrichment on the part of NTPC, so as to justify the claim of the Electricity Boards for interest on this amount."

He also relied on the Order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the

APTEL in Appeal No. 387 of 2017 wherein it is held that on an

indeterminate state of affairs interest claim is not maintainable. At

para 53 of the said order it is held that in terms of Section 34 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, the interest ought to be paid is only when the

amount got quantified or determined as price per unit for the power

supplied. The APTEL also held to the same effect in Appeal Nos.239

and 246 of 2013 vide order dated 24.07.2014.