bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7326 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7326 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7326 OF 2008 Aditya Birla Foundation & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 2. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7334 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7334 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7334 OF 2008 Maharshi karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commissioner & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 3. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7435 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7435 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7435 OF 2008 Jnana Prabodhini Medical Trust’s Sanjeevan Hospital ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 4. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7436 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7436 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7436 OF 2008 Sadhu Vaswani Mission’s Medical Complex Inlaks & Budhrani Hospital ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents 2 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 5. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7437 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7437 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7437 OF 2008 KEM Hospital Society ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commissioner & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 6. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7438 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7438 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7438 OF 2008 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 7. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2008 Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation’s Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital & Research Centre ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 8. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7440 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7440 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7440 OF 2008 Hastimal Sancheti Memorial Trust ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH 3 9. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7441 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7441 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7441 OF 2008 N.M.Wadia Institute of Cardiology ... Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents AND AND AND 10. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6891 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6891 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6891 OF 2008 Grant Medical Foundation & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for the petitioner in all petitions except W.P.No.7438 of 2008. Mr.C.U.Singh i/by Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for the petitioner in W.P.No.7438 of 2008. Mr.Ratnakar Singh i/by Mr.Arijit Maitra for the respondent No.1 in all petitions. Mr.Vikas Singh with Mr.Abhishek Khare, Ravi Prakash and Rahul Sinha i/by Khare Legal Chambers for the respondent No.2 in all petitions except W.P.No.7438/2008. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. These petitions have been filed contending that the Maharashtra Electric Regulatory Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the MERC") has increased the tariff rates for electricity and re-categorised the 4 consumers without following the proper procedure. It is contended that although the electricity companies had sought enhancement of the tariff rates by a particular percentage, the MERC has granted an increase of a much higher rate to the electricity distribution companies. This, according to the petitioners, has been done without hearing them and without notice to them that the rate would be increased to the extent which the MERC has granted. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of these petitions. It is submitted that the petitioners have an adequate, alternate and efficacious remedy of filing either a review or an appeal under the Electricity Act, 2003 and, therefore, the petitions should not be entertained. 3. A grievance is made by the petitioners that although some of them have filed a review, either through their association or individually, no interim relief has been granted to them. It is, therefore, contended that grave hardship is being caused to the petitioners as a very high rate of tariff has to be paid by them although they provide essential services to the society. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a writ petition 5 is always maintainable when an order is ex-facie bad in law because it is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. 4. The petitioners are either educational institutions or hospitals or the airport authority. They contend that the tariff that they have now to pay is the same as is payable by malls and multiplexes. The MERC, according to them, has effectively re-categorised them by including them in the same category as malls and multiplexes, thereby requiring them to pay a much rate of tariff. 5. Under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the MERC is empowered to determine the tariff to be paid for the retail sale of electricity amongst other tariffs. The procedure for deciding the application for determining the tariff under Section 62 is to be found in Section 64 of the Act. Under section 94(f), the MERC is also empowered to review its own decisions, directions and orders. Thus the petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing a review. In fact some of the petitioners have filed review applications which are still pending before the MERC. 6. Besides this remedy, the petitioners also have an 6 alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy in filing an appeal before the appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Act. All appeals are expected to be decided within a period of 180 days. If an appeal is not decided within the stipulated period, the Tribunal is expected to record its reasons for belated disposal of the appeal. The appellate Tribunal therefore is empowered to consider whether the order passed by the MERC is correct. All contentions raised in these petitions can be raised by the petitioners before the appellate Tribunal. 7. In my opinion, therefore, these petitions must be rejected as the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal or a review under the Act. 8. If the petitioners approach the appellate Tribunal within two weeks from today, the ad-interim relief granted, if any, in the petitions shall continue upto the filing of the appeals. The petitioners may also make appropriate applications before the appellate Tribunal for interim reliefs which the appellate Tribunal will consider in accordance with law. 9. All appeals which are either already filed or which 7 may be filed by the petitioners, will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from the date of filing of the appeals. 10. If any interim applications are filed by the petitioners in the appeals, the appellate Tribunal will decide those interim applications in accordance with law within a period of two weeks after the applications are filed. 11. Writ petitions rejected as aforesaid.