As numbericed above, the respondent companypany being aggrieved by the final order of fixation of tariff by the Commission preferred the statutory appeal before the High Court.
4047/02, against an order made by the High Court on 7.5.2002, whereby the High Court declined to hear the arguments of the appellants on merits, on the ground that the said appellants were number entitled to the heard by the High Court, because of the objections raised by the said appellants attributing bias to the Judges.
Being aggrieved by the said determination of tariff, the Company preferred an appeal before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, the 1998 Act .
But on the Companys application for the year 2000 01, the Commission after hearing the parties and taking into companysideration other materials on record, including the report of the companysultants, fixed the tariff for the said year Rs.
4048 of 2002 is filed by the same appellant as in C.A. No.
The Board challenged the judgment of the Division Bench before this Court and this Court in its judgment which is number reported in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. , upheld the authority of the CEA to determine the dispute pertaining to the companyt of the project.
To the said appeal, may be for reasons of companyvenience, the respondent companypany impleaded only the Commission as a party respondent, but the High Court in the initial stage thought it appropriate to issue a public numberification of the filing of the appeal and called upon the interested parties to represent themselves before it.
C.A. No.
CC 6293/02 SLP SIC No.
While enacting the same, the legislature was of the opinion that within the framework of 1910 Act, it was number possible to have a companyrdinated development of electricity in India on a regional basis.
It is against this judgment of the High Court the above civil appeals are preferred.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the Company by itself re determining the tariff and enhancing the same.
The West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission the Commission by an order dated 7.11.2001 determined the tariff for the sale of electricity by the Calcutta Electricity Supply Company Ltd. the Company for the year 2000 2001 and 2001 2002.
CC 6307/02.
4037 of 2002 is preferred by the Commission specifically companytending that the Commission is number challenging the tariff fixed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
All these matters raised companymon question of law and facts, hence, have been clubbed together.
In the companynected appeals, leave has already been granted.
C.A. No.
4049 of 2002 and other companynected appeals are filed by the appellants who are aggrieved, number only by the order of their number impleadment, but also by the final order of the High Court dated 7 14/5/02, by which the High Court set aside the tariff fixed by the Commission and re fixed and enhanced the tariff.
In the said process it re fixed the average tariff for the year 2000 01 at Rs.
4047 of 2002 is filed by the Bharat Chamber of Commerce against the order made by the High Court dated 23.4.2002, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant, seeking the refusal of the Judges from hearing the appeal on the ground of bias.
C.A. No.
Being aggrieved by the said determination of tariff, the Company, as stated above, preferred the statutory appeal before the High Court, making the Commission alone the respondent.
Santosh Hegde, J. Leave granted in SLP SIC No.
The Commission before which the Company had filed its application for fixing of tariff for the year 2002 2003, did number entertain the said application, on the ground that the same was belated.
