SCO 220-221 SECTOR 34-A,
Petition No.3 of 2004
Date of hearing:
Date of Order: 6.5.2004
In the matter of: Petition filed by Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Northern Railways, Ambala, for review of Tariff Order for the FY 2002-2003 passed by the Commission.
AND
In the matter of Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Northern Railway, Divisional Railways Manager’s Office, Ambala.
Present: Sh. R.S.Mann, Chairman,
For the Petitioner: Sh. Yogesh Putney, Advocate
Sh. Sanjay Kubbey, S.E. Railways, Ambala
For the PSEB: Sh. B.D.Bansal, Director, Sales
Sh. V.K.Shanan, Deputy Director, Sales
2. Though the Review Petition was initially filed by the Petitioner on
29.12.2003, the same was returned in original on
3. The
Petition was heard on
4. A
question arose as to whether the Petition was time-barred or not. It is noted by the Commission that the
petition in complete form has been filed with the Commission only on
5. When
the above facts were brought to the notice of the Petitioner, it was stated on
behalf of the Petitioner that a letter was written to the Secretary PSERC
requesting for review of the Tariff Order dated September 6, 2002 but a reply
was received from the office of the Commission that the letter cannot be
treated as Petition as it is not in proper form and is also not supported by
affidavit as required under the PSERC Conduct of Business Regulations. It was
further stated by the Petitioner that thereafter Review Petition was filed on
6. It
is, however, noted by the Commission that enclosing the Review Petition with the
objections in response to public notice was not a correct course of action for
filing of a petition. The petitions are
required to be filed by the aggrieved and interested parties as per the
procedure laid down in the PSERC Conduct of Business Regulations and public
objections in connection with ARR and Tariff Application for the year 2003-04
are not the right forum for raising issue of review of Tariff Order for the
year 2002-03. It is also noted that even the said objection including Review
Petition was filed by the Petitioner in proper form only on
7. However,
in view of the circumstances of the case, a liberal view is taken and the delay
in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
8. The
learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how the Petition is
maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XLVII Rule I of the Civil
Procedure Code. The Petitioner stated
that the case is covered under those provisions as there is mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record as the Tariff Order has fixed higher tariff
for Railways when compared to average cost of supply of electricity as worked
out by the Commission, Tariff for the Railways is also high even when compared
to the cost of purchase of power by the Board from the Central Generating
Stations or when compared with the tariff of industrial consumers or with
reference to the tariff being charged from Railways in the neighbouring
states or even with reference to tariff charged from Railways by the Board in
the earlier years. The Petitioner also
went on to say that inspite of paying higher tariff,
they are being denied certain benefits like incentives for drawal
of power at higher voltage etc. being allowed by the Board to the industrial
units. It was further argued that the tariff being charged from the Railways is
unjust especially as the load of Railways is a mixed load and
almost 40% of the total load is being
used for its domestic consumers.
9. The
Commission notes that the grounds given by the Railways in its Review Petition
and in the arguments before the Commission cannot be covered under the grounds
as laid down in Order XLVII Rule I of CPC. None of these grounds can be
classified as new and important matter or evidence or an error apparent on face
of record or sufficient reason necessitating review of Tariff Order passed by
the Commission. The Commission also
noted that the Tariff Order has been passed by the Commission after full public
hearing and inviting objections and observations from all segments of public
and all categories of consumers and all interested parties including the Board
and the Government. All the matters relevant for the Tariff fixation, including
those now taken up in this Petition, were duly considered by the Commission and
thereafter detailed Tariff Order was issued. No new fact or evidence has been
brought out now nor has the Petitioner pointed out any error apparent on face
of record. The fact that the Petitioner
feels aggrieved or feels that he has been treated harshly or even unfairly
cannot become an adequate ground for review of the impugned order. The Tariff Order has been passed keeping in
view the interests of all categories of consumers and balancing the clashing
interests of different parties and different players placed in the field namely
the Government, the Board and various categories of consumers. The Order passed
after such wide public hearing cannot and should not be amended without similar
public hearing and only on the basis of request of a single party, especially
when no prima facie case is made out. As
already stated, all factors put forth by the
Petitioner were already in notice of the Commission at the time of passing of
the Tariff Order and were duly considered and weighed by the Commission before
passing the Tariff Order.
10. In
view of all above, the Commission is of the view that no case has been made out
to review the Tariff Order on the grounds given by the Petitioner. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(L.S.Deol) (R.S.Mann)
Member Chairman
Place:
Dated: 6.5.2004