CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Appeal the Appellant/Applicant has challenged tariff order dated 31/10/2014 passed by Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission ("the State Commission") in Suo Motu Petition No. 34 of 2014 (M). There is a delay of 47 days in filing this Appeal. In this application the Applicant has prayed that the said delay be condoned.

(2.) IN support of the application for condonation of delay, an affidavit is filed by Mr. Arvind Banerjee, who is working as Executive Director of the Applicant. From the application and from the affidavit of Mr. Banerjee it appears that the impugned order was received in the office of the Applicant on 12/11/2014. The Appeal against the said tariff order was initially decided to be filed on the issue of fuel cost allowed under the impugned order. The said Appeal was ready in the month of December, 2014 but could not be filed due to late receipt of demand draft for filing fee. It appears that in the meantime a view was expressed by the Applicant that additional issues regarding operational parameters of station heat rate and gross calorific value should also be raised. To discuss the said issue Mr. Banerjee visited the office of the Applicant's counsel on 5/1/2015. Non -receipt of demand drafts for filing fee was also to be discussed. The discussion was inconclusive. As such, the Appeal was finalized and affidavits were given by Mr. Banerjee on 5/1/2015. The speed post containing the demand draft for filing fee was received on 6/1/2015. However, since the Applicant continued to hold a view that operational parameters regarding station heat rate and gross calorific value had been operating to the detriment of the Applicant it was decided to discuss the said issues once again with the counsel with a view to including them in the grounds of Appeal. It appears that therefore the filing of Appeal was withheld. Thereafter, the said issues were discussed with the counsel and it was ultimately decided to include them in the grounds of Appeal. According to Mr. Banerjee he verified the additions/modifications made in the Appeal on 9/2/2015 and the Appeal was filed on 9/2/2015. It is submitted that the delay of 47 days in filing the Appeal is caused on account of the afore -mentioned circumstances. The delay is not intentional. It is submitted that sufficient cause has been made out by the Applicant for condonation of delay.

(3.) WE are not impressed by this submission. It appears to us that initially the above issues were not raised by the counsel in the Appeal probably because of the observations of the State Commission to which our attention is drawn by Mr. Ranganadhan. However, the Applicant was of the view that the said parameters were operating to the detriment of the Applicant and hence they need to be included in the Appeal. Such situations are not unknown. On this issue there were deliberations between Mr. Banerjee and the Applicant's counsel as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Banerjee. We have no reason to disbelieve this statement made by Mr. Banerjee on oath and Ms. Srivastava, counsel for the Applicant who has reiterated these facts. It appears that after discussion, the Applicant prevailed over his counsel and the said points were included in the Appeal. It is not for us at this stage to say whether these points are rightly included in the Appeal memo or not. That will be decided at the final hearing of the Appeal if it is admitted. For the purpose of disposal of this application, we have to only see whether the Applicant has made out sufficient cause. We are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has successfully explained the delay.