Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission v. L.I. Parija and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
S. H. Kapadia
Judgment Date: 2006-01-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; High Court’s interim restraint orders set aside; writ petitions treated as infructuous; contempt proceedings quashed.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission

Respondents

L. L. Parija and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Raj Kumar Mehta

Counsels for Respondents

• Janaranjan Das
• Swetaketu Mishra
• R. K. Talwar
• Amil Talwar
• Yashpal Dhingra
• N. Annapoorani

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Civil Appeals arise from interim High Court orders restraining the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission from fixing tariffs for the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The High Court initially restrained the Commission under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing it not to fix tariff for the relevant periods. Subsequently, the High Court recalled the restraint by order dated 02 September 2003 but kept the writ petitions pending to monitor the Commission’s actions. The appellants (the Commission) submitted that the restraint was indefensible after the Court allowed the Commission to decide; in fact, the Commission had already taken decisions and fixed tariff for the two periods, with levy being realized accordingly. It was urged that such tariff fixation could be questioned only before the prescribed forum under the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1994, and there was no necessity to keep the writ petitions alive. The respondents argued for maintaining the High Court’s restraint and monitoring. The Supreme Court held that interim restraints were indefensible once permission to decide was granted, and tariffs fixed could be challenged in the statutory forum. Consequently, the writ petitions were infructuous, and contempt proceedings were quashed. The appeals were allowed, clarifying limits of judicial restraint in regulatory tariff matters.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1994

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The interim restraint orders were indefensible and unnecessary once the High Court permitted the Commission to decide; the Commission had already fixed tariffs and levies were being made; the remedy to challenge tariff lies in the prescribed statutory forum under the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1994; writ petitions should be treated as infructuous.

Contentions of Respondents

The High Court’s restraint and monitoring were warranted to ensure due process in regulatory tariff fixation; the writ petitions should not be treated as infructuous; the tariff fixation should be subject to appellate or statutory remedies.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## A # ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION _V._ ## L.I. PARIJA AND ORS. ## JANUARY 16, 2006 ## B ## [ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] _Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-lnterim orders by High Court in writ petitions restraining the Commission from fixinf, tariff-Later. order_ c _[recalled but mailers kept pending-Held, restraint orders are indefensible-] Besides, meanwhile Commission having fixed the tariff and levies having been made. there was no necessity to keep the writ petitions pendinf, which have become infructuous-lnterim orders--Orissa Electricizv Reforms Act, 199-1._ The present appeals were filed against the interim orders passed by D[the ][High ][Court ][restraining the appellant from proceeding to ][fix ][tariff ][for ] the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Meanwhile, the High Court though recalled the earlier orders but kept the writ petitions pending for purpose of monitoring the action of the appellant. • .. ~ Allowing the appeals, the Court E HELD: The interim orders passed by the High Court restraining the Commission from exercising its functions are indefensible. After the High Court had permitted the Commission to take necessary decision, the Commission, in fact, took decision and fixed the tariff for the relevant periods; and levy is being made accordingly. Correctness of the tariff fixed F can be questioned before the prescribed forum, as provided in the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1994. That being so, there was no necessity for the High Court to keep the writ petitions pending. Nothing further needs to be done in these appeals except directing the High Court to treat the writ petitions as having become infructuous. 1421-F-H; 422-AI G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 519-524 of 2006. ... From the Judgment and Orders dated 3.2.2003 of the Orissa High Court H 420 ) c ~ ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULA TORY COMMISSION _v._ LL PARIJA \PASA YAT,J I 421 '~ in Misc. Case Nos. 7410 and 8953 of2002, dated 7.3.2003 in Misc. Case No. A 414 of2003 and dated 14.3.2003 in O.J.C. No. 6751 of2001 and Misc. Case Nos. 414 and 580 of 2003. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellants. > Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, R.K. Talwar, .\mil Talwar, Yash[B ] Pal Dhingra and Ms. N. Annapoorani for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. \ -{ The appeals were essentially directed against the interim orders passed by the Orissa High Court directing, in offence, restraining the Orissa Electricity D Regulatory Commission (in short 'the Commission') - appellant herein from taking steps in the matter of fixation of tariff for the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us an order dated 02.09.2003 in Misc. Case Nos. 1380 and 1805 of 2003 by which the earlier orders were modified and the Commission was permitted to decide on the question of fixation of tariff for the aforesaid E two periods. The writ petitioners before the High Court, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 13 in these appeals have not appeared inspite of service of notice. From the order dated 02.09.2003, it is clear that the High Court virtually recalled the order of restraint on the exercise of power of the Commission. But at the same time, the High Court has kept the matters pending for the F purpose of monitoring the action of the Commission. We find these prders to be rather strange. The interim orders passed by the High Court restraining the Commission from exercising its functions are indefensible. After the High Court had permitted the Commission to take necessary decision, the Commission has. in fact. taken decision and has fixed the tariff for the two periods. It is also not disputed that levy is being made on the ba~is of tariff[G ] so fixed. It is not in dispute that correctness of the tariff fixed can be questioned before the prescribed forum. as provided in the Orissa Electricity Reform. Act. 1994. That being so. there was no necessity for the High Court to keep the writ petitions pending. As the Commission has already taken decisions, the tariffs have been fixed and levys are being made, nothing further needs H 422 SUPRl'ME COl'RT RFPORTS J2006] I S.C.R. - A to be done in these appeals except directing the High Court to treat the Writ Petition as having become infructuous. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. In view of this order, the notice of contempt issued by the High Court and the contempt proceedings stand quashed. R.P. Appeals allowed.