Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commisioner v. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 758 of 2018 {Arising out of order dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1595 of 2018} • Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, through its Secretary, having its registered office at Civil Lines, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. 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 - 110066, Through Mr. Rajesh Agrawal Associate Vice President.

2. Triumala 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, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

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 At Plant At Plot No. 195, O.P. Jindal Industrial Park, Village Punjipatra, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

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 Pujnipatra, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

7. Raigarh Ispat Udyog Sangh, Through Its Secretary, Having Its Registered Office At 173-H, O.P. Jindal Industrial Park, Punji Pathra, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Appellant :

Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Shri C.K. Rai and Shri Mandavi Bhardwaj, Advocates.

For Respondent No.1:

Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 31.10.2018 1.

Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2018 is for condonation of delay of 20 days. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.

2.

Heard counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the Respondent No.1. 3.

Perused the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2018. The learned Single Judge, after deliberations has recorded this as to the reason for disposal of the writ application:

"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 respondent Nos.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 25.06.2018, the Regulatory Comission has filed an affidait.

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 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 17.08.2018 for consideration of the notice issued to the Commission."

4.

We do not find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is erroneous in any manner.

5.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan