Jindal Steel And Power Ltd, v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.1595 of 2018 Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its corporate office at Jindal Centre, 12 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066, through Mr. Rajesh Agrawal, Associate Vice President ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, through its Secretary having its registered office at Civil Lines, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Tirumala Balaji Allows Private Limited, through its Director, having its registered office at 1/1, CAMAC Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700016
3. Vandana Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, having its registered office at Village Chhurikhurd, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
4. Raigarh Iron Industries Ltd., through its Director, having its registered office at 905, KLJ Tower, Netaji Shubash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034
5. Ajay Ingot Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, having its registered office and plant at Plot No. 195, O.P. Jindal Industrial Park, Village Punjipatra, Raigarh (C.G.)
6. Shree Nirmal and Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, having its registered office and plant at Plot No. 176, O.P. Jindal Industrial Park, Village Punjipatra, Raigarh (C.G.)
7. Raigarh Ispat Udyog Sangh, through its Secretary, having its registered office at 173-H, O.P. Jindal Industrial Park, Punji Pathra, Raigarh (C.G.)
8. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:
Mr. Arun Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Mr. Rajesh Garg, Mr. Animesh Verma and Miss Medha Shrivastava, Advocates.
For Respondent No.1:
Mr. R.K. Mehta and Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocates.
For Respondents No.2, 4, 5 and 6: - Mr. Anshu Mahajan and Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocates. For Respondent No.3:
None present.
For Respondent No.7:
Mr. K.R. Nair and Ms. Veena Nair, Advocates.
For Respondent No.8 / State: - Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24/07/2018
1. Heard.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would submit that parties have entered into agreement on 30-6-2018 and filed a joint application on 23-7-2018, and a prayer has been made to dispose of the petition in terms of the compromise recorded in the agreement dated 30-6-2018.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the agreement is contrary to law.
4. In reply to this submission, Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would bring to the attention of the Court, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the agreement.
5. Be that as it may, this Court is not entering into that dispute since the petitioner and private respondents (parties to lis) have entered into amicable settlement and resolved their dispute amicably and respondent No.1 Regulatory Commission is a quasi-judicial body. The application has been made on behalf of the parties except respondents No.1, 3 & 8 and amicable agreement has been entered into between those parties, no lis survives for consideration and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
6. The matter is closed. However, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25-6-2018, the Regulatory Commission has filed an affidavit.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Regulatory Commission - respondent No.1 after arguing for fairly long time submits that two weeks' further time be granted to file an additional affidavit.
8. Since the case is being closed, a separate MCC be registered and it be listed along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Regulatory Commission - respondent No.1, on 17-8-2018 for consideration of the notice issued to the Commission.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma