LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMN vs WESTERN ELECT.COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.&ORS on 5 January, 2009

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-000946-000946 - 2007Official PDFBench Biswanath Agrawal, Ganpat Singh SinghviAdvocates RAJESH KUMAR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.946 OF 2007
Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Western Electricity Company of Orissa
Limited and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
With Civil Appeal No.2309 of 2007
O R D E R

By an order dated 27th January, 2006, Orissa Electricity Regulatory

Commission (for short ‘the Regulatory Commission’) directed issue of notice to the

respondents under proviso to Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the

Act’), requiring them to file representations against proposed suspension of their

licences. Simultaneously, the Regulatory Commission appointed three special officers

to over see working of the respondents. The appeals filed by the respondents against

that order were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short ‘the

Appellate Tribunal’) vide its order dated 13th December, 2006. The Appellate

Tribunal set aside the order impugned in the appeals but observed that if the

Regulatory Commission proposes to continue or initiate fresh action under Section 24

of the Act, then it shall do so strictly in accordance with the relevant statutory

provisions and follow the procedure prescribed therein.

...2/-

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Regulatory Commission

was justified in issuing notice to the respondents calling upon them to file

representations against proposed suspension of their licences, but there was no

warrant for appointment of special officers to over see their work. Therefore, the

Appellate Tribunal had rightly annulled the appointment of the special officers.

However, it could not have set aside the order of the Regulatory Commission in its

entirety without properly appreciating that only show cause notice had been issued to

the respondents and final order was yet to be passed by the Regulatory Commission.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part. The impugned order of the

Appellate Tribunal is quashed so far as it annuls the show cause notice issued by the

Regulatory Commission under Section 24(1) of the Act. Now, it would be open to the

respondents to file their representations/ objections before the Regulatory

Commission, which shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law without

being influenced by the observations made in the order impugned in these appeals.

Needless to say that we have not gone to the question as to whether while

issuing notice under Section 24(1) of the Act proposing suspension of the licence, the

Regulatory Commission could pass an order for appointment of special officer and

this question is left to be decided in appropriate case.

...3/-

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.946 of 2007, it is not

necessary to pass any further order in this appeal, but we clarify that any observation

made against the appellants in the impugned order shall not prejudice their cause

before the Regulatory Commission.

[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 05, 2009.