- (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th July 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to vacate interim order passed earlier. The fact which has triggered to filing of the Writ Petition being No.11813 (W) of 2011 along with other matters is shortly put hereunder:
(2.) The Central Electric Regulatory Commission (hereinafter as Commission) one of the respondents in the appeal as well as in the writ petition in exercise of the power granted under terms and conditions of Tariff Regulations inserted new clause (4) in the Regulation 5 of CERC by which the Commission has empowered itself to grant provisional tariff up to 95% of the annual fixed cost of the project claimed in the petition subject to adjustment after the final tariff has been issued and the said amended provision was sought to be applied for revising the tariff for the period 2009-2014 and thereafter decided provisionally by an order dated 23rd June, 2011 allowing 70% annual fixed cost of the project as has been allowed to NTPC. The tariff application of appellant made before the CERC for determination of 2009-14 has been published and no objection has been received from any corner. As per the aforesaid order dated 23rd June, 2011 of the Commission the appellant started raising bills for electricity charges at enhanced rate. Soon thereafter the respondent-writ petitioner along with other persons affected, filed writ petitions challenging validity and legality of the said Regulation 5(4) and also the above order passed thereunder taking various grounds. It appears from the record that identical challenge was made against the decision of the Commission of amendment of the Regulation and also order passed thereunder, and further demand of payment by the appellant at an increased rate in the Jharkhand High Court. In the writ petitions filed in the Jharkhand High Court interim order was passed in effect restraining the appellant herein from demanding any amount on the basis of the increased tariff. During pendency of the writ petition in the Jharkhand High Court above batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court also. It appears from the record that after hearing all the parties the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 11th August, 2011 restraining the appellant from disconnecting the electricity supply line of the writ petitioners in connection with the aforesaid demand made in terms of the order passed by the Commission. From the record it appears that from time to time this interim order was directed to continue and till date as stated hereinafter it was allowed to be continued by both the parties.
(3.) Thereafter on 21st March, 2012 Jharkhand High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and interim order passed thereunder was vacated. The writ petitioners in the Jharkhand High Court thereafter filed an SLP against the aforesaid order of dismissal before the Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court entertained the hearing of the SLP, but declined to pass any interim order. Soon thereafter on 17th day of April, 2012 an application was filed before the learned Single Judge for vacating of the interim order taking the ground that identical point has been decided by Jharkhand High Court against all the consumers and in favour of DVC and upheld action and decision of the Commission. Therefore there was no justification of continuation of the interim order passed earlier. It is also alleged in the application that the basis of passing interim order by the learned Single Judge and as extended from time to time was interim relief granted by Jharkhand High Court. When this interim order disappeared with the dismissal of the writ petitions followed by refusal to grant interim relief by the Hon ble Supreme Court there is no plausible reason to stay the hands of the DVC with subsisting interim order. After dismissal as above, in Jharkhand area most of the consumers are now compelled to pay dues at an enhanced rate as determined by the Commission. Moreover it is also pleaded that there has been hardship as their future development programme and project undertaken by the appellant have to be suspended and it has become very difficult to run with the constant borrowing of fund from the bank.;