IA No.234 Of 2016 IN RP (DFR) NO.821 Of 2014 and IA NO.426 of 2016. Case: Gulbarga Electricity Supply Co. Ltd Vs 1. Narayanpur Power Company Ltd. 2. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. Uttarakhand High Court
| Case Number | IA No.234 Of 2016 IN RP (DFR) NO.821 Of 2014 and IA NO.426 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Srishti Govil and Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil Sr. Adv. and Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. |
| Judges | Mrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member |
| Issue | Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007 - Rule 13 |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2016 |
| Court | Uttarakhand High Court |
Order:
Mrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson
-
According to the Applicant t here is 113 days'' delay in filing the instant Review Petition. The Applicant has therefore filed this application for condonation of delay. It may be stated here that according to the Registry there is about 126 days delay in filing the instant Review Pe tition.
-
Before we go to the explanation offered by the Applicant for the delay and rival contentions we must note certain important facts. The order of which review is sought by the Applicant is dated 07/10/2013. The review petition was filed by th e Applicant on 14/03/ 2014. There were several defects in the review petition. Therefore, the Registry of this Tribunal sent a letter dated 2 4/03/2014 to the Applicant. In the said letter the defects were listed and the Applicant was asked to remove them within 7 days. The Applicant, however, did not take any steps to remove the defects. The defect ive review petition was kept pending in the Registry. When the Registry brought this fact to the notice of the Chairperson by an administrative order, the review petition was directed to be listed before th is Tribunal for "direction s". Accordingly, it was listed on 18/03/2016. On that day counsel for the Applicant appeared and sought time to seek instructions from the Applicant as to whether the Applican t wants to prosecute this matter, and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 04/04/2016. On 04/04/2016 the matter was listed again before th is Tribunal. Till then no steps were taken by the Applicant to remove the defects. This was noted by this Tribunal in Order dated 04/04/2016. This Tribunal observed that this review petition is kept pending from the year 2014 and expressed its unhappiness about the conduct of the Applicant. In the interest of justice and as a last chance, time was granted t o the Applicant to remove the defects. Ultimately, the Applicant removed the defects and the matter was again listed on 25/04/2016. In the circumstances, d irection was given by this Tribunal to the Registry to number the review petition and list the same on 12/05/2016.
-
It appears that there was delay in filing the review petition. Hence, the Registry directed the Applicant to file an application for condonation of delay. The Applicant filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court making a grievance that the Registry of this Tribunal had directed the Applicant to file an application for condonation of delay in view of Rule 13 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007 ( "the said Rules"). The Applicant sought quashing of Notifications dated 24/02/2012 and 14/09/2012, whereby procedural directions were issued relating to review. The said writ petition s were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on 30/06/2014 by holding that this Tribunal was justified in calling upon the Applicant to file application for condonation of delay in filing review petition beyond 30 days by exercising jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial