KASHI VISHWANATH STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company engaged in the manufacture of Steel Ingots, HSD Bars, Wire Rods and Structural Steel etc. It is situated at Narain Nagar, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in the State of Uttaranchal. The Petitioner challenges the provisional tariff order dated 24 -08 -2004 passed by the second Respondent - Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission. The writ petition was admitted on 14 -12 -2004. No interim order was passed by this Court in this case. The case is posted for final hearing today.

(2.) THE impugned order was passed by the second Respondent - Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 62(4) and 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under the said Act (except under Section 127) or an order made by the Appropriate Commission under the said Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Under Section 111(2), every appeal under Sub -section (1) shall be filed within a period of 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission is received by the aggrieved person; provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 45 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. The order impugned in this writ petition was passed on 24 -08 -2004. This writ petition was filed on 04 -10 -2004. Inspite of the provision for a statutory appeal against the impugned order, the Petitioner filed this writ petition on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal contemplated under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had not been established. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that though under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 there is a provision for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted as yet by the Central Government and therefore, the Petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition.

(3.) MR . M.C. Bansal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the writ petition has already been admitted by this Court and since it is posted for final hearing, the dispute raised in the writ petition may be decided by this Court itself. However, we are not impressed by this argument. The writ petition was filed and was entertained at a time when there was no Appellate Tribunal in existence. Ordinarily, when a statutory appeal is provided, the party should avail of such statutory remedy of filing the appeal. The Petitioner himself has stated that he was constrained to file the writ petition due to the absence of the Appellate Tribunal for considering the appeal. This Court also entertained the writ petition only because of such a situation. In view of the change of circumstance, there is no justification for this Court to proceed with the case for deciding the dispute on merit.