* 1 * PIL(L).45.2011 17.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 45 OF 2011 Vegan Inc. ..... Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate i/by. M/s. Thakore Jariwala and Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. D.J. Khambatta , ASG, Mr. Arijit Maitra, Advocate, Ms. Shilpa Kapil, Mr. H. Toor and Mr. Chidanand Kapil, Advocate for respondent no.2-MERC. Ms. Anjali Chandurkar i/by. Mulla and Mulla, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Y.V. Divekar a/w. Mr. Hemant Singh a/w. Ms. Reshamrani J. Nathani i/by. M/s. Divekar & Co., Advocate for Intervenor-respondent no.4. CORAM :- Mohit S. Shah, Chief Justice, & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 17th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an NGO claiming to represent the interest of Consumers of Electricity Supply in the Mumbai Suburban has challenged the orders dated 31st May, 2011 (Exhibit-E) and 1st July, 2011 (Exhibit-F) of respondent no.2- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission * 2 * PIL(L).45.2011 17.8.2011 (MERC). In view of the order that we propose to pass with the consensus of the parties, it is not necessary to set out the facts leading to filing of the petition or the contentions raised therein. The impugned orders are passed by MERC in petitions under Sections 63, 86(1)(b) and 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the guidelines for deterimination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by Distribution Licenses, 2005. Section 111 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by MERC may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The Appeal is required to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date on which the copy of the MERC is received by the aggrieved person. The Appellate Tribunal has also been conferred with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period of 45 days. 3. Mr. Bookwala, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an NGO which cannot afford to pay the heavy court- fees stamp of Rs.1,00,000/- which would normally be payable on the appeal memo. Secondly, it is submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the MERC and its application for intervention was not accepted, the petitioner’s appeal may not be entertained on the ground of locus-standi of the petitioner. Thirdly, it * 3 * PIL(L).45.2011 17.8.2011 is submitted that the bar of limitation of 45 days will also come in the way of the petitioner as the petitioner is desirous of challenging the order dated 31st May, 2011. 4. The learned counsel for all the four respondents, state that since the petitioner claims to be an NGO representing the consumers in the Mumbai Suburban, the respondents will not dispute the petitioner s‘ locus to file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents also state that if the Appellate Tribunal exercises the power to waive the payment of court-fees stamp as provided in Rule 55(3) of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity(Procedure, Form, and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007 their respective clients would have no objection. We are further informed that respondent no.3 herein- Reliance Infrastructure has already filed an appeal to challenge the same order dated 31st May, 2011 before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the self-same order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by respondent no.2-MERC has already been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 111 of the Act and the present petitioner had also filed an intervention application, which was not entertained by MERC, it would be in the fitness of things, if the challenge of the * 4 * PIL(L).45.2011 17.8.2011 petitioner-NGO in this petition against the order dated 31st May, 2011 and 1st July, 2011 is entertained by the Appellate Tribu nal by entertaining the petitioner’s appeal. It would also be in the fitness of things, if the Tribunal waives payment of court-fees stamp on the appeal taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is an NGO and desires to challenge the impugned orders in the interest of the consumers. 6. Also having regard to the fact that the appeal filed by one of the parties is already pending before the Appellate Tribunal, it would be also be in the fitness of things, if the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for challenging the order dated 31st May, 2011 is also considered by the appellate Tribunal in proper perspective. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with observations that if the petitioners file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 4 weeks from today, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider entertaining the appeal on merits, after taking into consideration, the observations made in this order. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [CHIEF JUSTICE]