LexM/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1095 M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2019) JULY 02, 2019 [A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificate) Regulations, 2010: s. 4 (As amended vide Notification dated 12 August, 2015) – Amendment to s. 4 for revision of tariff for second control period i.e. period starting from 1.4.2013 – By Notification dated 12.8.2015 – Giving prospective effect to the amendment – Appellant No. 1 (who had commenced its commercial operation on 3.5.2013), thus was denied the applicability of tariff norms adjustments (as provided by third proviso to unamended Regulation 4) – Writ petition challenging the amendment was dismissed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: High Court order is cryptic and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny – Therefore, the matter is relegated to High Court for consideration of the writ petition afresh. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court has committed manifest error or so to speak, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it for adjudicating the relevant issues raised by the appellants. For, there is hardly any intelligible discussion in the impugned judgment in that regard. It is cryptic and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. No logic can be deduced as to why the Court was persuaded to reject the argument despite the multifaceted issues raised by the appellants. The High Court has not analysed the grounds of challenge regarding the validity of the impugned Amended Regulations and including the competency to frame such a regulation, appropriately. The High Court merely noted that the appellants failed to point out any prejudice caused to them because of exclusion from the benefit flowing from the [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1095 1095 A B C D E F G H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R. principal Regulations. The argument of prejudice was raised by the appellants to the detail but the High Court has failed to deal with the same, to say the least satisfactorily. Similarly, the detail arguments regarding the validity of the impugned Amended Regulations and the competency to frame such a regulation has not been analysed by the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of in a most casual and cavalier manner. It would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for fresh consideration of the writ petition on its own merits in accordance with law. [Paras 8 and 9] [1104-F-G; 1105-A-G] 2. The validity of the regulations can be decided only in judicial review proceedings before the courts and not by way of appeal or review. The appellants having invoked such a remedy before the High Court, all contentions available to the appellants in that regard ought to have been adjudicated in proper perspective. The nature of elaborate order passed by the Commission on 4th August, 2015, which culminated with the framing of Amendment Regulations, the only remedy available to challenge the same was by way of a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 10] [1106-B-C] PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through Secretary (2010) 4 SCC 603 : [2010] 3 SCR 609 – relied on. Case Law Reference [2010] 3 SCR 609 relied on Para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appel No. 5139 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2016 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 25337 of 2015. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Radhika Singh, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Abhishek Gupta, Jaafar Inayat, Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs. for the Appellants. Pallav Mongia, Mridul Chakravarty, Advs. for the Respondent. A B C D E F G H 1097 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in C.W.P. No.25337 of 2015 (O & M) dated 23rd November, 2016. The appellants had challenged the fourth amendment to Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificate) Regulations, 2010 (for short, “principal Regulations”) published v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.