The Preamble to the said Act states as under An Act to companysolidate the laws relating to generation, Page 3 of 84 transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures companyducive to development of electricity industry, promoting companypetition therein, protecting interest of companysumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, companystitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
Thus, whether the persons named by the panel have any financial or other interest, which is likely to affect their functioning as Chairperson was a matter which depended upon the satisfaction of the Selection Committee before recommending it to the State Government.
The provision in question was Section 68 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The dissent was on the legality of the suo moto tariff order.
The original petitioner seeks to impute bias against these two persons because of the post they have held.
The judgment of this Court in Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner Secretary to Govt.
On 12.12.2014, the State Commission companysisting of these two persons as Member and Chairman and Mr. S. Nagalsamy, passed a tariff order permitting a tariff hike by TANGEDCO by a majority of 21 with respondent Nos.6 7 companycurring on the issue of tariff hike while the third Member Mr. Nagalsamy was dissenting.
The Committee recommended the name of Mr. G. Rajagopal respondent No.7 on 27.12.2013.
The Electricity Regulatory Commission Act of 1998 was an endeavour to distance the Government from determination of tariffs by having independent regulatory companymissions.
Another Notification dated 27.2.2014 was published companystituting a Selection Committee for selecting a person for the post of the Chairperson.
The Union of India, as also some of the State Commissions are arrayed on the one side to canvas for an interpretation of the provision as it reads, while on the other side, are companysumers, activists and some affected parties, who canvassed the importance of the State Regulatory Commissions and the nature of functions it performs, to establish that a Judge alone should preside over these Commissions.
Page 41 of 84 The impugned decision of the Madras High Court opining that the Chairperson need number be a High Court Judge was rendered on 7.2.2014.
of Haryana and Anr.
24 was also referred to.
The Notification of his appointment was issued on 31.12.2013 whereafter he assumed office on 9.1.2014.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal23 wherein in the process of assailing an appointment to the Commission, Section 85 5 was analysed.
This appointment is specifically assailed on the ground that he was still working as Director Finance , TANGEDCO when his name was recommended by the Selection Committee, and that Mr. Rajagopal opted for voluntary retirement after his name had been recommended by the Selection Committee.
In the facts of the case, it was found that the companycerned person was 23 2013 1 SCC 501 Page 43 of 84 working as Joint President of the JP Power Ventures Limited at the time of selection, hence he had financial and other interest in the companypany, which would prejudicially affect his functions as the Chairperson of the Commission.
It was observed that the power under the said sub section 5 was to be exercised by the Selection Committee and number by the Government.
