SIEL LIMITED ETC Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal Nos. 57 of 2008, 155 of 2007, 125 of 2008, 45 of 2010, 40 of 2010, 196 of 2009, 199 of 2009, 163 of 2010, 144 of 2010 and 6 of 2011 - in all ten in number are being disposed of by this common judgement and order and the following brief narration will suffice to show as to why a comprehensive and analogous treatment is meted out. Background of the Parties

(2.) THE Appeal No. 57 of 2008 has been preferred by SIEL Ltd. (now called Mawana Sugars Ltd.), which was engaged in manufacture of caustic soda and chlorine by electrolytic process, against the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission, for short) , Punjab State Electricity Board and the State of Punjab respondent numbers 1, 2 and 3 herein respectively against an order dated 17.9.2007 passed by the Commission whereby the Commission determined the ARR for the FY 2007 -08 along with true up exercise for the year 2005 -06 and FY 2006 -07 in respect of the respondent no 2, the PSEB(now called Punjab State Power Corporation Limited). The Appeal no 155 of 2007 has been preferred by the Steel Furnace Association of India, a registered association having its office in Ludhiana of Steel Furnace Units based on all over the country including Punjab against the self -same respondents as in Appeal no. 57 of 2008 and against the self same order and in identical languages. The contentions canvassed in both the appeals are as follows: - 7

(3.) THE above narration shows that for the sake of brevity and precision and in order to avoid conflict of decisions a comprehensive treatment is necessary to deal with commonality of the issues. Now, we would proceed to narrate in brief the contentions of the appellants in each of the appeals and the counters of the respondents thereto after which we will frame common issues for consideration. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN APPEAL