Civil Writ Petition No.11893 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11893 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.7.2011 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ...Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 23.8.2007 amending the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fee) Regulations, 2005 framed under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). The impugned regulation provides for a schedule of fee to be paid annually by a deemed licencee. Case of the petitioner is that it is a statutory body under Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1948. To streamline the functioning of the Electricity Board and to perform functions mentioned in Section 86 of the Act, a Regulatory Commission has been set up under Section 82 of the Act . Transmission, distribution and trading in electricity is regulated by licence under the provisions of the Act. Apart from grant of licence, there is a category of deemed licencees under Section 14 of the Act. Under proviso to Section 16 of the Act, the Commission can specify conditions of licence applicable to a deemed licencee referred to under Section 14 of the Act. Civil Writ Petition No.11893 of 2011 -2- *** Contention raised in the petition is that there is no provision in the Act for payment of licence fee and thus the impugned Regulation is ultra vires. We are unable to accept the submission. Section 16 contemplates conditions for grant of licence which includes conditions for payment of licence fee. Section 86(1)(g) specifically provides for levy of fee by the State Commission. Section 181 provides for framing of regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act and clause (zg) thereof contemplates regulation of the manner of making of application and fee to be charged. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that power under Section 16 of the Act could be exercised only within one year. This submission is untenable. Licence being mandate of the statute, conditions for licence can be laid down and expiry of period of one year does not affect the powers of the Commission to lay down the conditions for licence and prescribing fee therefor. Last submission is that quantum of fee was exhorbitant. This is not a matter which can be gone into in writ jurisdiction, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 111 read with Section 121 of the Act. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 12, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge