GAUTAM FERRO ALLOYS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) ISSUE notice to the Respondent No. 2 only as the learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 3 have already put in appearance and they have already been served copies of the writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Damodar Valley Corporation ( DVC), a company engaged in generation and transmission of electricity did not apply for revision of tariff for long and ultimately, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission directed the DVC to submit proposal for tariff upon which only on 26.10.2009 the DVC submitted a petition for prescribing the tariff. It is submitted that the petition filed was defective. However, during pendency of that petition since 26.10.2009, all of a sudden on 23.6.2011 by exercising powers under Regulation 5 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission(Terms & Conditions of Tariff)(1st Amendment) Regulation 2009, the Commission increased the tariff by the interim order. It is submitted that the Petitioners have challenged the validity and virus of the Regulation 5(4) of the aforesaid Regulation, 2009 and have preferred the writ petitions because of the violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed without notice to the Petitioners, the consumers and that too, of such interim nature fastening liabilities upon the Petitioners with retrospective effect. It is also submitted that the order impugned is absolutely illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice as it is a non speaking order and it contains No. reasons for enhancing the tariff and that too from April, 2009 -14.