PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
SCO 220-221 SECTOR-34-A CHANDIGARH





	

Petition No. 8 of 2004.
Date of hearing: 14.7.2004.
Date of order:  21.07.2004.


In the matter of :         Petition filed by Union of India, Ministry of
			      Railways for review of  order dated 23.5.2003
			      passed by  the Commission  for  the financial
			      year 2003-04. 



AND


In the matter of:		Union of India, Ministry of Railways,Northern
			      Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s office,
			      Ambala,  through  Senior  Divisional Electric
			      Engineer/Traction Distribution, Ambala.


Versus


			      Punjab  State  Electricity  Board, The  Mall,
			      Patiala

Present:			Sh.R.S.Mann, Chairman.
				Sh. L.S.Deol, Member.

For the petitioner:		Sh.Yogesh Putney, Advocate.
				Sh. Sanjay Kubbey, SE, Railways, Ambala.

ORDER:
              The petitioner has filed this petition for review of Tariff Order dated May 23, 2003 passed by the Commission for the financial year 2003-04.
  1.               The petition in proper form was filed by the petitioner only on March 31, 2004. Thus there was delay of about 10 months in filing the proper petition for review. This petition was returned to the petitioner on April 7, 2004 with the objection that the delay in filing the review petition has not been explained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay.

  2.               In respect of application for condonation of delay, Mr. Putney, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had sent letters dated June 2, 2003 and October 27, 2003 asking for review of the Tariff Orders for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 which were within limitation and the delay in filing the petition, if any, may be condoned.

  3.               The petitioner’s letters dated June 2, 2003 and October 27, 2003 could not be treated as Review Petition as neither these were in proper form for filing Review Petition nor were they supported by affidavit as required under the Conduct of Business Regulations of the Commission. Thus no case has been made out for the condonation of delay in filing the petition.

  4.               Even otherwise, the Commission notes that the grounds given by the Railways in its Review Petition and in the arguments advanced 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,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 the 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. Further more, the Commission has started the proceedings for the determination of tariff for all categories of consumers for the year 2004-05 and the petitioner will get every opportunity to present his case.

  5.               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. 


Chandigarh
Dated: July  21 , 2004.