ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus L.I. PARIJA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 16-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 
F 
periods; and levy is being made accordingly. Correctness of the tariff fixed 
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 
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. 
c 
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,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.