VISA STEEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISA Steel Limited, hereinafter to be called as 'VISA', in short, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has established an Integrated Steel Plant at Kalinga Nagar, Duburi in the district of Jajpur. The said Company, as Petitioner, has filed this Writ Petition assailing the order/direction dated March 23, 2007 issued by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, hereinafter to be called as 'OERC' increasing the electricity supply tariff by withdrawing the incentives given to the Petitioner's unit on the ground that the said decision was illegal, arbitrary and issued in gross violation of the direction/policy of the State Government. There is also a prayer to direct refund of all excess amount paid in excess of the bills that would have been generated if the tariff concession would have been allowed to continue.

(2.) THE scenario of facts reveals that Northern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd, hereinafter to be called as 'NESCO', in short, Opposite Party No. 2 entered into an power supply agreement with VISA on October 16/17, 2007 agreeing to supply electricity to its unit. The unit was classified under the category of 'Large Industry'. Opposite Party No. 2 in the said agreement had agreed to give/allow incentives to the Petitioner's plant for three years if the Petitioner does not reduce the contractual demand during the agreement period. It is alleged that by -passing the terms of the agreement, incentives have been withdrawn that too, contrary to the policy decision of the Government.

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, NESCO, Opposite Party No. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit taking the stand that in consonance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Electricity Act, opportunity of hearing was afforded and considering the submissions made by the objectors, the OERC determined the annual revenue requirement and retail supply tariff for the financial year 2007 -08 by its Order Dated March 23, 2007. It is alleged that VISA (Petitioner) did not file any objection and was also not an objector before the OERC. It is further averred that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the OERC have a right to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is stated that the Petitioner did not prefer any appeal though some other consumers similarly placed as the Petitioner had preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and the said Appeals are still subjudice. In the counter, it is averred that the OERC in fact had not withdrawn the incentives that has been allowed to HT and EHT consumers in fact there was a revision of slab rate. It is stated that no policy directive was ever issued by the State Government under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 not to enhance the tariff. Relying upon clause 7 of the agreement, it is averred that the said clause stipulates that tariff and conditions of supply mentioned in the agreement shall be subject to any revision that may be made from time to time, in short, according to Opposite Party No. 2 the decision taken by the OERC is in consonance with the prevailing law and policy of the Government and the Petitioner having not preferred any appeal against the said order under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.