In a notable legal development, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment in the case concerning the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations Amendment. The High Court is now tasked with conducting a fresh consideration of the case, ensuring a thorough analysis in accordance with the law. Stay informed as this case unfolds further.
Facts
- The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the fourth amendment to the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations concerning renewable energy sources.
- The amendment made a classification between projects commissioned in different financial years without a rational basis.
- The appellants sought various reliefs in their petition including setting aside the amended regulations and applying revised regulations from a specific date.
- The authority initiated proceedings for tariff revision and issued a draft amendment in December 2014.
- The appellants argued that the amended regulations were arbitrary and discriminatory.
- The Commission’s power to determine project-specific tariff under Regulation 6 was highlighted.
- The appellants had established a 9.90 MW Biomass Power Plant declared operational in May 2013.
- Regulation 4 stated that existing tariff norms would continue until revised regulations were notified, subject to adjustments.
- The Commission’s determination of generic tariff was for a control period starting from April 2013 to March 2017.
- The High Court noted that the appellants raised two contentions in their petition.
- The first contention was related to the delay in decision-making by the authorities.
- The second contention was regarding the non-consideration of relevant material by the authorities.
Also Read: Balancing Justice: Case Summary of C.P. No. 16/2017
Arguments
- The Amended Regulations provide that existing norms shall be applicable even after the expiry of control period until revised Regulations are notified.
- Adjustments as per revised regulations are to be made for the period prior to the notification of Amended Regulations.
- Special conditions provided for in the Amended Regulations for different years do not prejudice the petitioners but are part of calculations examined by the Commission.
- The Commission passed the order on 4.8.2015 based on examined facts, leading to the amendment of Regulations.
Also Read: Redefining Pre-Deposit Requirements: Ideal Detonators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Analysis
- The High Court failed to adequately analyze the grounds of challenge regarding the validity of the amended regulations.
- The High Court disposed of important points in a cursory manner without proper perspective.
- The High Court did not elaborate on the arguments raised by the appellants regarding discriminatory treatment in the amended regulations.
- The Commission’s order dated 4 August, 2015, analyzed the necessity for revision of regulations thoroughly.
- The High Court’s judgment lacked an intelligible discussion on the relevant issues raised by the appellants.
- The High Court’s judgment was cryptic and did not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
- Different treatment for projects commissioned in FY 2013-14 compared to those commissioned afterwards was considered discriminatory.
- The limited argument before the High Court focused on discriminatory treatment based on the commissioning year of projects.
- The High Court should consider all relevant aspects of the matter agitated by the appellants in accordance with the law.
- The appellants have the right to have all their contentions adjudicated in proper perspective by the High Court.
- The only remedy available to challenge the elaborate order passed by the Commission and the framing of Amendment Regulations is through a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
- Challenges to the validity of regulations can only be decided in judicial review proceedings before courts and not through appeal or review.
- The discussion in two paragraphs of the High Court’s decision was deemed casual and cavalier, warranting a fresh consideration of the writ petition.
- Parties are to be relegated to the High Court for a fresh review of the writ petition on its own merits in accordance with the law.
- Detailed arguments regarding the validity of the Amended Regulations and the competency to frame such regulations have not been adequately analyzed by the High Court.
Also Read: Interpreting Section 14 of the 2002 Act: Equivalence of CJM and CMM
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The impugned judgment and order have been set aside.
- The case is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration.
- The High Court is directed to review the case on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
- All pending applications have been disposed of.
Case Title: M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT LTD Vs. HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Case Number: C.A. No.-005139-005139 / 2019
