AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After hearing Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners ably assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee,
learned counsel, Mr. Joydip Kar learned senior advocate appearing for the Damodar Valley Corporation being assisted by Mr. Amitesh Roy, learned
advocate and Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned senior advocate appearing for the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission ably assisted by Mr. Samir
Halder, it appears that the moot question is whether the Regulatory Commission/respondent no. 4 determined the retail tariff for the financial year
2009 to 2013 or whether it did not do so. It is submitted that appeals have been preferred against the tariff orders by both the Damodar Valley
Corporation (In short ‘the DVC’) as also by some consumers and associations thereof.
Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 would submit that in effect none of the prayers sought in the writ petition can be
granted on the face of the allegations contained in the writ petition as also the records which have been disclosed by the writ petitioners, excepting
prayer (a) which he says is only between the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 1 the DVC and does not concern the Regulatory Commission.
It is his further submission that there is a power vested in the appellate authority under Section 121 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by which the
supervisory jurisdiction is exercised by the State Appellate Authority and the grievance of the writ petitioners, if at all tenable would have been more
conveniently agitated before such appellate Authority.
On the contrary it is the case of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on a true and proper appreciation of the tariff orders it
will be found that the retail tariffs have not been determined for the financial year 2009 to 2013 and even the DVC has taken the stand that only the
retail tariff of the 2013-2014 has been determined and in other cases whatever the DVC has charged and realised has been alleged to be conditionally
made into the tariff determined without however, consequential orders of actually fixing tariff having been issued.
 I believe that this requires consideration on affidavits since Mr. Dhar seeks to file such affidavit. Accordingly, let the affidavit in opposition be filed
by the respondent no. 4/Regulatory Commission within a period of two weeks after Summer vacation. Reply thereto, if any shall be filed within a
period of one week thereafter.
The DVC may also file an appropriate affidavit within the same period since this case involves allegations made by the writ petitioners which are
supported to a certain extent by the DVC. Mr. Dhar’s client shall also supply copy of its affidavit in opposition to Mr. Kar’s client through
learned advocate on record and Mr. Kar shall also be at liberty to use a counter to such affidavit in opposition, if so advised.