THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.26620 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders, dated 05.06.2010, issued by the 1st respondent purportedly determining and approving the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for the financial year 2008-09, as contrary to Regulation No.1 of 2003 and without any notice or public hearing, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent-Regulatory Commission has no right to extend the period of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment and therefore the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents are in violation of the Regulation 1 of 2003. It is not disputed that earlier in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.18212 of 2010 & batch, this Court by judgment, dated 29.07.2011, allowed the said batch of Writ Petitions setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Commission determining and granting Fuel Surcharge Adjustment to the licencees and also the consequential demands made by the DISCOMS. It was further held in the above judgment that it was open to the licencees to file applications afresh claiming FSA, and if any such applications are filed by the licencees the Commission shall consider and decide them in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, a batch of Writ Appeals were filed in W.A.Nos.858 of 2011 & batch and a Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 20.01.2012, held that in a situation covered by Regulation 45-B (4), it is not open to the Commission to step in and undo the irreversible consequence of the failure to abide by the time stipulation therein, i.e., forfeiture of future FSA claims by the DISCOMS for such period, by taking recourse to Regulation 59 of the Business Regulations. The Commission has no such power and must necessarily give effect to the forfeiture clause stipulated in the Regulation. Accordingly it was held that the 1st respondent-Regulatory Commission has no power under Regulation 59 of the Business Regulations to enlarge the time stipulated in Regulation 45-B(4) thereof for the purpose of entertaining applications from the DISCOMS for determination of FSA. Such claims by the DISCOMS for the financial year 2008-09 are therefore hopelessly time barred. 4. In the present case also it is stated that the claims pertaining to the Fuel Surcharge Adjustment are relating to the same financial year, 2008-09. In view of the above judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.858 of 2011 and batch, which squarely covers the present case on hand, it must be held that the Regulatory Commission has no power under Regulation 59 to enlarge the time stipulated under the Regulation 45-B(4) thereof for the purpose of entertaining applications from the DISCOMS for determination of FSA. The impugned orders are accordingly held liable to be set aside and they are set aside. The amounts, if any, already paid by the petitioners pursuant to the demand made in the impugned orders are liable to be refunded to the petitioners by way of adjustment against the future bills. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th February, 2012. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy