NIRMAL LOHIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed present writ petition calling in question action of respondent No.2 by which respondent is proceeding to determine the electricity tariff of year 2021-2022 without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner in violation of Regulation 12 of the Madhaya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff for Supply and Wheeling of Electricity and Methods and Principles for Fixation of Charges) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as MPERC Regulations, 2015).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed petition for determination of tariff before respondent No.2. Publication was made on 12.02.2021 and objections were invited up to 08.03.2021and matter was fixed for public hearing on 09.03.2021 and 10.03.2021. It is further submitted by counsel that entire proceeding is contrary to Regulation 12 of MPERC, Regulations, 2015. As publication was made on 12.02.2021 and objections were invited till 08.03.2021, therefore, very less time was given to party interested to obtain copy of petition and prefer objections. Petitioner has filed preliminary objection on basis of material available with him, but respondents are not considering his objection and proceedings ahead to determine the tariff for year 2021-2022. It is further submitted by him that technical person has not been appointed on post of Director, proper documentation and financial status were not filed along with petition and without following Regulation 12 of MPERC, Regulations 2015, respondents are proceeding to determine the tariff which is contrary to law. In this background, it is submitted by counsel appearing for petitioner that mandamus be issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the preliminary objection of petitioner and provide copy of petition and adequate opportunity of hearing to petitioner in the matter.

(3.) Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on the judgement reported in [Shreyash Industries Limited Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, 2018 13 SCC 256]. He relied on paragraph No.5 of the judgment and submitted that levy of surcharge without inviting objection from consumers is bad in law and it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He also places reliance on the judgement reported in [West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC LTD., 2002 8 SCC 715 ]. Relying on said judgment, counsel for petitioner submitted that the statute itself confers right on a person to raise objections. Therefore, principles of natural justice is to be strictly followed and non supply of copy of petition and in sufficient time to obtain copy of petition amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Respondent No.2 ought to have provided copy of petition and hear the petitioner before passing any final order regarding determination of tariff. Procedure adopted by respondents is not transparent. Commission should ensure transparency while exercising powers discharging its function. Action of respondent No.2 amounts to denial of participation of interested person and violation of principles of natural justice. Commission should hold public hearing on objections.