Header
| Sno | Hearing Date | Procceding |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25-03-2021 |
The case is reserved for order on admissibility of the petition.
2. The petitioners contention is that the Commission, while passing the tariff order, has committed error mistake apparent on the face of record in respect of the parameters of Gross Station Heat Rate (GSHR), water charges reimbursement and carrying cost for differential payment. Hence, the review petition. 3. The respondent CSPDCLs contention is that the review petition is not maintainable under section 94(1)(f) of the Act read with regulation 23 of the CSERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2009 on the ground that the decision, directions and orders can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Review can be done under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure only when there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record or from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence or for any other sufficient reason. Further, no legal injury has been caused to the petitioner. The respondent prays for dismissal of the review petition. Commissions View: 4. We have considered the contentions of the parties and perused the documents on record. As regards the subject matter of the review petition, the Commission has gone through the mandatory regulatory process while determining the generation tariff for the petitioner. After following due process, the Commission has passed a detailed and reasoned order on power procurement price in which the issues raised by the petitioner in the review petition have been discussed in detail in the order. 5. It is worth mentioning that Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for review of any order of the Commission as per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which prescribes the ground for review as ‘an error or mistake apparent on the face of record.’ It is settled law that ‘an error or mistake apparent on the face of record’, as prescribed in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, applies to cases of such mistakes only which are apparent on the face of the record and not an error which is to be searched. In other words, review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and can only be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Therefore, mistake of fact or mistake of law cannot be construed as being mistake apparent on the face of record. In State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The term mistake or error apparent’ by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.” 6. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that this Commission has applied its mind and passed a reasoned order on the subject and, accordingly, the requirement of error or mistake apparent on the face of record cannot be attracted in this case. Therefore, the review petition is not maintainable and, hence dismissed. |
| 2 | 25-03-2021 |
Order passed in order sheet dated
25-03-2021 |
| 3 | 23-03-2021 |
The case was heard on 05.03.2020 and reserved for orders. Due to Covid pandemic and resultant lockdowns declared by the Central and State Governments, order in this case could not be passed earlier. Hence, another opportunity of hearing is provided to the parties today.
Hearing held through video conferencing. Shri Deepak Khurana, counsel along with Shri Anil Sharma for petitioner. Shri Abhinav Kardekar and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Chawla, Counsels for respondent No.1. Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, counsel and Shri Biplab Dutta, EE for respondent No. 2 CSPDCL. 2. Heard the parties on admissibility of review. 3. Case is reserved for order on admissibility. |
| 4 | 05-03-2020 |
Shri Deepak Khurana, counsel for petitioner. Shri Abhinav Kardekar and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Chawla, Counsels for respondent No.1.
Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, counsel and Shri Biplab Dutta, EE for respondent No. 2 CSPDCL. 2. The respondent No. 2 CSPDCL filed preliminary objection along with Vakalatnama. Copy given to the petitioner. 3. Heard the parties on admissibility of review. Case is reserved for order on admissibility. |
| 5 | 28-09-2019 |
Shri Rahul Gupta, EE for petitioner. Shri Ms. Paridhi Saxena, Advocate for respondent. 2. Due to lack of quorum the case is adjourned. 3. The case be listed for final arguments on 30.11.2019 at 12:00 noon. |