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 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 recusal of the Judges from hearing the appeal on the ground of bias.
A. No.
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, 1998 the 1998 Act .
A. No.
A.No.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.
It is against this judgment of the High Court the above civil appeals are preferred.
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 years 2000 2001 and 2001 2002.
It companytends that it was aggrieved by the interpretation by the High Court of some of the provisions of the 1998 Act as also the High Courts finding in regard to the validity of the Regulations and the procedure to be followed in fixing the tariff which findings, according to the appellant, would make the Commission nugatory and defeat the very object of the 1998 Act.
CC 6293/02 SLP No.
All these matters raised companymon question of law and facts, hence, have been clubbed together.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the Company by itself re determining the tariff and enhancing the same.
CC 6307/02.
In the companynected appeals, leave has already been granted.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Leave granted in SLP No.
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.
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.
4048 of 2002 is filed by the same appellant as in C.A.No.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 be 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, as stated above, preferred the statutory appeal before the High Court, making the Commission alone the respondent.
Therefore, the High Court ought to have impleaded and heard the companysumer appellants herein.
