LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-343

FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Decided On March 27, 2014
Federation Of Karnataka Appellant
V/S
Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the petitioners in the writ petitions assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.3.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.34104 -06 & 34107 - 09/2011(GM -KEB) whereby the learned single Judge has rejected the writ petitions on the ground that there is no merit in the writ petitions and has levied cost of Rs.50,000/ - to be deposited by the petitioners before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bangalore and in the event of non deposit of said cost within four weeks from the date of the said order, Registry was directed to issue necessary certificate in favour of the committee to recover the said cost.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellants that the first appellant is a company constituted and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was earlier known as Mysore Chamber of Commerce and was established on 9th May 1916 in Bangalore. Today, it has a membership of over 2400 constituents drawn from all sectors of Trade, Commerce and Industry, spread over the entire State, including 150 District Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations, who own and operate power intensive units across the Karnataka State. In order to protect and espouse the cause of its constituent members, the first appellant has been filing complaints, petitions and has been mainly representing its members before the first respondent in all previous tariff proceedings held with regard to the tariff applications/petitions filed by the respondentcompanies ever since the establishment of the first respondent -Commission in the year 2000. The appellants 2 and 3 are the registered consumers of the fourth respondent. 4th appellant is the consumer of the 2nd respondent. The 5th and 6th appellants are the consumers of the 5th respondent. It is the further case of the appellants that they are directly affected by the electricity tariff revision proposals of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and are interested and intended to file their respective objections against the electricity tariff proposals of the respondents. Be that as it may, for the year 2010 -2011, paper publications were issued calling for objections for regulating power tariff whenever ESCOMs make applications to the Commission for fixing tariff under various categories, be it is business, residential or non -residential. On such applications being given by various ESCOMs, paper publications are issued calling for objections from general public. For the year 2010 -11, such paper publications were issued in various daily newspapers giving various dates of hearing and calling for objections from the public. The appellants were before this Court questioning the said notifications themselves on the premise that issuance of said public notices runs contrary to the Regulations inasmuch as the relevant regulation stipulates a clear 30 working days notice to be given to general public to file objections. The main grievance of the appellantspetitioners was that such a clear 30 working days notice was not given. Therefore, they felt necessitated to present the writ petitions questioning the correctness of the proceedings as referred to above. The writ petitions filed by the appellants -petitioners came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 19.3.2012 and the learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the grounds urged by the appellantspetitioners in the writ petitions and other materials available on record and taking into consideration all relevant material on file and by assigning reasons in Paragraphs 15 to 18 has dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merits and levied costs as stated supra. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants have presented these writ appeals.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset is that the proceedings impugned in the writ petitions are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as without following the mandatory provisions of the tariff and without affording an opportunity they have proceeded to issue the notification and if appellants 2 to 6 who are the consumers were afforded an opportunity, they would have substantiated their stand. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered by either the respondents or the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he submits that the proceedings as referred to in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are vitiated and as such the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions may be granted as prayed for.