South West Mining Limited vs Rajasthan Electricty Regulatory ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6614 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8291/2023

South West Mining Limited

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr. Vinay Kothari, Mr. Mehul Kothari Mr. Ayush Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate & A.G.

(through VC), assisted by Mr. P.N.

Bhandari through VC Mr. Abhishek Mehta through VC Mr. Aman Anand through VC Mr. Suniel Purohit Mr. Sachin Mathur Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 17/08/2023 Pronounced on 31/08/2023

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned orders/communications/summons dated 21.4.2023 (Annexure-4), 25.4.2023, 1.5.2023 (Annexure-5), 23.5.2023 (Annexure-6), 24.05.2023 (Annexure-7) & 30.5.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondents, qua the Petitioner, may be declared, without authority of law, non-est, arbitrary and illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential directions, and

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

(ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a registered

Public Limited Company. The lignite mining cum power project was

envisaged by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1996. The

lignite mines pertaining to the project i.e. Kapurdi and Jalipa,

vested in the respondent no.2. The Mine Development & Operation

Contract was executed between the petitioner and the respondent

no.2-BLMCL, wherein the capacity of the petitioner was shown as

Mine Operator.

2.1. The petitioner participated earlier in two other bids, that

were conducted by the respondent no.2, but was declared

disqualified. In the next bid, that was conducted through National

Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in the year 2019, the

petitioner was emerged as the lowest bidder, but despite the

same, the respondent-BLMCL still did not declare the petitioner to

be the successful bidder, and has been extending the bid validity

of the petitioner.

2.2 The respondent no.1-Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory

Commission (RERC) vide order dated 21.04.2023, directed the

petitioner to furnish the documents in regard to the details of

monthly mining expenses since beginning of the project, till

31.03.2023.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent-BLMCL issued a letter dated

25.04.2023, whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish details of

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

the actual monthly expenditure incurred in raising operation from

the inception till 31.03.2023, on the strength of an order dated

21.04.2023 passed by the respondent-RERC.

2.4. The respondent-RERC vide letter dated 01.05.2023 asked

the petitioner to comply with direction contained in the order

dated 21.04.2023. Thereafter, the respondent-RERC vide orders

dated 23.05.2023 & 24.05.2023 directed the petitioner to provide

the aforesaid details, and to make appearance through the

authorized representative or the officer - in person - on

30.05.2023 at 11:00 AM alongwith the requisite details. On

30.05.2023, the respondent-RERC issued another order, whereby

last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear through

its authorized representative on 06.06.2023 and provide the

requisite information.

2.5. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the

afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Mr. Vinay Kothari and other learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the nature of the

information or data as sought by the respondents vide the

impugned notices/letters/orders is a private/proprietary and

confidential in nature, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be

mandated to supply such information to the respondents.

3.1. It was further submitted that the respondent-RERC does not

have the jurisdiction to examine actual monthly mining expenses

of the petitioner in the name of a self propounded theory i.e.

"Prudence Check". It was also submitted that there is no price

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

control law on the activity of raising lignite. The Mining is

governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 and it was not subject of the Electricity Act,

2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2003').

3.2. It was further submitted that the power under the Code Of

Civil Procedure, 1908, have been granted to the Commission by

Section 94 of the Act of 2003 read with Regulation 30 of the

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Transaction of

Business) Regulations, 2021, and the same has to be exercised

only in relation to the functions, as envisaged under Section 86 of

the Act of 2003, and that, the said power cannot be exercised

arbitrarily and beyond scope of functions of the Commission.

3.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been

declared as the lowest bidder, and now if the actual cost of

expenditure is disclosed by the petitioner, then the same would

jeopardize the business interests of the petitioner; therefore, the

arbitrary action of the respondent-RERC would be having an effect

of nullifying the whole bidding process, which is not justified in

law.

3.4. It was also submitted that the bidding process in question

was conducted by the NTPC in the year 2019, and action by the

respondent-RERC was taken for the first time, after a lapse of

more than 13 years, and therefore the Commission cannot

override the process of price determination and pass the

impugned order, which is not permissible under the law.

3.5. It was further submitted that the alternative remedy is not

an absolute bar to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

High Court, and therefore, the writ petition filed against a show

cause / action oriented notice is maintainable. In support of such

submission, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd.

Vs State of Maharastra & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33; relevant

portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder :

"8. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr: [1987]2SCR444 , Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr.: 2004(164)ELT141(SC) and Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana: AIR2007SC906 , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: (1988)ILLJ162SC ]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause."

3.6. It was also submitted that the appeal filed by the

respondent-BLMCL has nothing to do with the present petition,

because the respondent-BLMCL is a separate legal entity and the

present petitioner was not even a party to the said appeal or any

other litigation launched or pending before the RERC and the

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(6 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

3.7. It was further submitted that there was no fuel regulator for

determination of raising cost for the lignite mines in question and

the information sought by the respondents is a price sensitive

information, which, if disclosed, would lead to tender conditions

being prejudiced, and therefore, the entire action as taken by the

respondent is highly illegal, being violative of the provisions of

law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel

& Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.N. Bhandari and other

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 & 3,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable,

as the same has been preferred without availing the alternative

statutory remedy available under Section 111 of the Act of 2003,

and that the petitioner was having a legal right to challenge the

impugned order passed by the RERC before the APTEL.

4.1. It was further submitted that once the alternative remedy

was available, then invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court ought not be sought by the petitioner. In support of

such submission, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Than Singh

Nathmal Vs Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 6 SCR 654.

4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioner has intentionally not

disclosed the material fact of filing of an appeal by the BLMCL

before the APTEL, and that, the said company is the same

Company who has nominated the petitioner as the Mine Opertor.

It was further submitted that the order dated 21.04.2023 and the

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(7 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

consequential orders, which are subject matter of the present writ

petition, have already been challenged by the BLMCL.

4.3. It was also submitted that since the petitioner is the Mine

Operator, the impugned order was issued to it so as to examine

the prudence check as the mining expenses incurred would have a

significant impact on the overall transfer pricing of lignite, which in

turn, shall also have the consequential effect upon the final rate of

electricity supplied by the generator, and as an end result, the

burden would lie upon the public at large; therefore, the impugned

action on the part of respondents is justified in law.

4.4. It was further submitted that the Commission has the power

to issue summons for the purpose of any inquiry or proceeding

under Section 94 of the Act of 2003, and the Commission is

vested with all powers as equivalent to a Civil Court under the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; thus, as per the respondents, the

impugned action was taken as per the law.

4.5. It was also submitted that the first two bids were quashed,

because of manipulation and excessive costing, while the third

bidding process was organized through NTPC for examination of

transfer price, and therefore, the informations sought from the

petitioner are helpful for determination of fair transfer pricing, and

hence, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law.

4.6. It was also submitted that the information regarding the

payment of actual mining expenses sought by the respondent-

RERC from the petitioner is already in the public domain and

mentioned in Income Tax Returns (ITR), and therefore, the claim

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(8 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

of the petitioner regarding the same to be the proprietary or

confidential in nature cannot be sustained.

4.7. It was also submitted that the petitioner was nominated by

the generator, even though it was neither technically nor

financially qualified. In fact, the petitioner did not even participate

in the first International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Both the

previous bidding processes have failed due to manipulations of the

consortium, and hence for arriving at a reliable transfer price, the

authentic mining expenses as available with petitioner are

essential to be obtained.

4.8. It was also submitted that the prudence check has grossly

been misinterpreted by the present petitioner, because it is being

used commonly in all Electricity Commissions; it is provided under

Regulation 3 (i) & (ii) of the RERC Tariff Regulations, 2019.

Therefore, as per the respondents, when the mining expenses are

required, it does not mean that the Commission would reassess

whether the incurred expenditure was actual or inflated. The said

Regulation, as supplied on behalf of the respondents is reproduced

as hereunder:

"(3) The Tariff principles shall be based on the following elements, for calculation of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from tariff and charges of a Generating Station/unit (s), Transmission Licensee, SLDC and District Licensee:

(i) The applicant shall submit the forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement, expected revenue from existing tariffs and proposed tariff for the ensuing year and the Commission shall determine the ARR & tariff for the ensuing year of the Generating Station/unit(s), Transmission Licensee, SLDC, and Distribution Licensee:

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(9 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

(ii) Truing up of previous year's expenses and revenue based on Audited Accounts vis-a-vis the approved forecast and categorisation of variation in performance."

4.9. It was further submitted that the respondent-RERC is under

a mandate to consider the large public interest, and since the

price arrived at by any of the process would ultimately affect the

consumers at large, therefore, it is essential to have laboratory

figures of lignite regarding GCV, actual payment paid by the

respondent-BLMCL to the petitioner (Mine Operator) towards

mining expenses incurred by the petitioner.

4.9.1. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon

the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Tarini Infrastructure Ltd.

& Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 743, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs.

Solar Semiconductor Power Co. (India) (P) Ltd. & Anr.,

(2017) 16 SCC 498 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs

Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private Limited & Ors (Civil

Appeal No(s). 3480-3481 of 2020, decided 13.04.2023)

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Gujarat Urja

Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Tarini Infrastructure Ltd (Supra) is

reproduced as hereunder :

"10. The Electricity Act, 2003 has been enacted to consolidate and upgrade the existing laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trade and use of electricity; for taking measures conducive to development of electricity as an industry; to promote competition therein and to protect the interest of consumers; rationalise tariff and promote efficient and environment

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(10 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

friendly policies besides creating different regulatory and appellate bodies to deal with highly complex technical issues with regard to production, distribution and sale of electricity including fixation of tariff. A reading of the provisions of the 2003 Act would go to show that apart from fixation of tariff in a "situation of open access" or in a situation of competitive bidding covered by Section 63 of the Act, determination and fixation of tariff is a statutory function to be performed by the State Regulatory Commissions constituted under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 and exercising powers in consonance with the principles enunciated by the Electricity Act, 2003. Insofar as fixation of tariff is concerned, Part VII of the Act read with the functions of the State Commission contained in Section 86 thereof are relevant and would require to be specifically noticed."

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Gujarat Urja

Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Solar Semiconductor Power Co.

(India) (P) Ltd., (Supra) reads as under :

"37. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Act mentions "protecting interest of consumers" and Section 61(d) requires that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with Section 62, determination of tariff is to be made only after considering all suggestions and objections received from the public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute with notice to the public can be amended only by following the same procedure. Therefore, the approach of this Court ought to be cautious and

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(11 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

guarded when the decision has its bearing on the consumers".

Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Gujarat Urja

Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private

Limited (Supra) reads as follows :

"52. In Gujarat Urja v. Solar Power Company India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter "Solar Power Company India Pvt. Ltd"), the issue involved was whether the State Commission could extend the control period. One of the arguments made was that having regard to the terms of the PPA, the exercise of such power to extend the control period was not available under the statute. The Court (per Kurian Joseph, J) referred to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Tarini Infrastructure Ltd. 31 wherein it was held that: "10. While Section 61 of the Act lays down the principles for determination of tariff, Section 62 of the Act deals with different kinds of tariffs/charges to be fixed. Section 64 enumerates the manner in which determination of tariff is required to be made by the Commission. On the other hand, Section 86 which deals with the functions of the Commission reiterates determination of tariff to be one of the primary functions of the Commission which determination includes, as noticed above, a regulatory power with regard to purchase and procurement of electricity from generating companies by entering into PPA(s). The power of tariff determination/fixation undoubtedly is statutory and that has been the view of this Court expressed in paras 36 and 64 of A.P. TRANSCO v. Sai Renewable Power (P) Ltd. This, of course, is subject to determination of price of power in open access (Section 42) or in the case of open bidding (Section 63). In the present case, admittedly, the tariff incorporated in PPA between the generating company and the distribution licensee is the tariff fixed by the State Regulatory Commission in exercise of its statutory powers. In such a situation it is not possible to hold that the tariff agreed by and between the parties, though finds mention in a contractual context, is the result of an act of volition of the parties which can, in no case, be altered except by mutual consent. Rather, it is a

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(12 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

determination made in the exercise of statutory powers which got incorporated in a mutual agreement between the two parties involved. ********** *********** This Court in Solar Power Company India Pvt. Ltd(Supra) further observed that:

35. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Act mentions "protecting interest of consumers" and Section 61 (d) requires that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with Section 62, determination of tariff is to be made only after considering all suggestions and objections received from the public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute with notice to the public can be amended only by following the same procedure. Therefore, the approach of this Court ought to be cautious and guarded when the decision has its bearing on the consumers.

36. Regulation 85 provides for extension of time. It may be seen that the same is available only in two specified situations - (i) for extension of time prescribed by the Regulations, and (ii) extension of time prescribed by the Commission in its order for doing any act. The control period is not something prescribed by the Commission under the Conduct of Business Regulations. The control period is also not an order by the Commission for doing any act. Commissioning of a project is the act to be performed in terms of the obligation under the PPA and that is between the producer and the purchaser viz. Respondent 1 and appellant. Hence, the Commission cannot extend the time stipulated under the PPA for doing any act contemplated under the agreement in exercise of its powers under Regulation 85. Therefore, there cannot be an extension of the control period under the inherent powers of the Commission.

37. The Commission being a creature of statute cannot assume to itself any powers which are not otherwise conferred on it. In other words, under the guise of exercising its inherent power, as we have already noticed above, the Commission

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(13 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

cannot take recourse to exercise of a power, procedure for which is otherwise specifically provided under the Act."

4.10. Reliance on behalf of the respondents was also placed upon

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Jagdish Singh Vs Heera Lal & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 479.

4.11. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-BLMC however,

submitted that the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the

respondent-RERC is not sustainable in the eye of law, because the

prudence check of actual expenditure of the raising contractor, by

the respondent-RERC for assessing the transfer price of lignite is

totally contrary to law and beyond the jurisdiction of the

Commission as provided under Section 94 of the Act of 2003.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner and the respondent

no.2-BLMCL have duly entered into the Mine Development &

Operation Contract. Thereafter, the respondent-BLMCL vide letter

dated 25.04.2023 asked the petitioner to furnish the details of

actual monthly expenditure incurred in the raising operations on

strength of the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by respondent-

RERC. Subsequently, the respondent-RERC issued the

aforementioned impugned notices/summons to the petitioner

requiring it to furnish details of the monthly mining expenses since

beginning till 31.03.2023 and also directed the Authorized

Representative or the Officer of the petitioner to appear in person.

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(14 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

7. This Court further observes that the earlier two bids were

quashed by the Commission because certain gross manipulations

were discovered therein; on count of rejection of the previous two

bids, no bidding rates were available, and it is difficult to

determine the final transfer price, as result of the same, the

Commission asked for details of the monthly expenses from the

petitioner through the impugned notices/summons.

8. At this juncture, it is concerned appropriate to reproduce

Section 94 of the Act of 2003, as hereunder:

"94. Powers of Appropriate Commission.-(1) The Appropriate Commission shall, for the purposes of any inquiry or proceedings under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning of any public record;

(e) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses;

(f) reviewing its decisions, directions and orders;

(g) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Appropriate Commission shall have the powers to pass such interim order in any proceeding, hearing or matter before the Appropriate Commission, as that Commission may consider appropriate.

(3) The Appropriate Commission may authorise any person, as it deems fit, to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceedings before it."

8.1 A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision of law clearly

reveals that the Commission has power to issue notices/summons,

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(15 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

and thus, the impugned action taken by the Commission was not

beyond its jurisdiction.

9. This Court also deems it appropriate to reproduce the

relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Gujarat

Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Solar Semiconductor Power Co.

(India) (P) Ltd., (Supra) as hereunder:-

"31. Having referred to the above decisions, we shall now make an independent endeavour to analyse the present case in the context of factual matrix and the relevant statutory provisions. An amendment to tariff by the Regulatory Commission is permitted under Section 62(4) read with Section 64(6) of the Act. Section 86(1)(a) clothes the Commission with the power to determine the tariff and under Section 86(1)(b), it is for the Commission to regulate the price at which electricity is to be procured from the generating companies. Section 86(1)(e) deals with promoting co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with regard to the power conferred on the Commission with regard to fixation of tariff for the electricity procured from the generating companies or amendment thereof in the given circumstances.

32. Part X of the Act from Sections 76 to 109 deals with "Regulatory Commissions" providing for their constitution, powers and functions. Section 92 read with Section 94 provides for the proceedings and power of the Commission while exercising its functions and powers. Under Section 92, the proceedings of the Commission are to be governed by what is specified in the appropriate Regulation with regard to the transaction of business at its meetings. It is that Regulation which is referred to under Section 181(2)(zl) "rules of procedure for transaction of business under sub-section (1) of Section 92". Under Section 181(2)(zp) other matters also can be specified. Section 2(62) defines "specified" as "specified by regulations made by the appropriate Commission or the Authority, as the case may be, under this Act".

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(16 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

33. Section 94 provides that the appropriate Commission shall be vested with certain powers as are vested in a civil court, only in six specified areas. Under Section 94(1)(g), the Commission has the powers of a civil court in respect of "any other matter which may be prescribed". Under Section 2(52) "prescribed means prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government under this Act".

"37. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Act mentions "protecting interest of consumers" and Section 61(d) requires that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with Section 62, determination of tariff is to be made only after considering all suggestions and objections received from the public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute with notice to the public can be amended only by following the same procedure.

Statutory power of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission to determine the tariff

47. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission is a body corporate constituted in terms of Section 82 of the Act, vested with certain important functions and powers specified under Sections 86 and 94 of the Act respectively. The body functions to achieve the purpose of the Electricity Act, 2003 viz.

"...taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tariff...".

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(17 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

10. This Court also observes that the respondent-RERC has no

fair transfer price before it, due to previous bidding processes

were not successful, and therefore, it was necessary for the

respondents to examine the mining expenses, for which they have

sought the requisite information from the present petitioner, vide

the impugned orders.

11. This Court further observes that the fair price is necessary

for safeguarding the interests of the public at large, and thus, on

that count also the impugned action of the respondents are

justified in law. This Court further observes that in the

aforementioned precedent laws, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that, "specially careful in dealing with matters of exercise of

inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at stake. The

interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly ascertained

from the Act. The Preamble of the Act mentions "protecting

interest of consumers" and Section 61 (d) requires that the

interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the

appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions for

determination of tariff".

12. This Court also observes that the prudence check in question

was only for the evaluation of the fair price, and that, information

in question was sought by the respondent-RERC from the

petitioner for the said purpose, as, if the price is not evaluated

properly, then it would adversely affect the interests and rights of

the consumers (public) at large, as has also been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment.

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(18 of 18) [CW-8291/2023]

12.1. This Court also observes that it is necessary for the

respondent-RERC to determine the transfer fair price on the basis

of authentic and reliable documents, so also to ensure

transparency in the process of evaluating transfer fair price.

13. This Court also observes that at this stage, the limited issue

in question is pertaining to the aforementioned impugned notices/

summons, and this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned orders/notices/communications/summons issued by the

respondents, as the same are perfectly justified in law.

14. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also does not

render any assistance to its case.

15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the

aforementioned precedent laws as well as looking into the factual

matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so

as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.

16. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-

(D.B. SAW/742/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)