BALMUKUND SPONGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bunch of writ petitions have been preferred by these writ petitioners, who are obtaining electricity supply from the respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'DVC'), a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, having its registered office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata. All the writ petitioners have challenged the validity of Clause (4) of Regulation No. 5 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 inserted by amendment dated 2nd May, 2011 being ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or transgress the Electricity Act, 2003 and also aggrieved against the order dated 23rd June, 2011 passed by the Central. Electricity Regulatory Commission on the basis of the said Regulation 5(4) and further aggrieved against the various bills issued against these writ petitioners following the order dated 23rd June, 2011 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'CERC), determining the provisional tariff to the respondent DVC vide order dated 23rd June, 2011.

(2.) It will not be necessary to give detailed facts of each of the writ petitions with respect to their terms and conditions of the supply of the Electricity by the DVC and details of the bills which have been challenged because of the reason that issue raised in these writ petitions do not require those details. However, the writ petitioners are consumers and are obtaining supply of electricity from the DVC.

(3.) The DVC was constituted by the Damodar Valley Act, and is a licensee under the 4th proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Earlier DVC used to determine its own tariff under Section 20 of the DVC Act and that position continued till Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'JSERC) issued order on 6th September, 2004 in Case No. 4 of 2004 that DVC should get its generation tariff determined, obviously from JSERC. But DVC took the stand that it was outside the jurisdiction of the JSERC and preferred a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by this Court, however, on account of non-removal of the defect by the DVC.