AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Vedanta Limited, Confederation of Captive Power Plants, Orissa, and Tata Steel Ltd. against the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) and Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL). The petitions challenged the legality of OERC's order dated 17.11.2020, which initiated proceedings for imposing Grid Support Charges on captive generating plants. The petitioners argued that OERC did not have the jurisdiction to impose such charges as per the Electricity Act, 2003, and that a similar issue had been previously decided in 2014, which OERC did not challenge. The court examined the statutory framework, previous judgments, and the specific provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and concluded that OERC's action was beyond its jurisdiction.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746051 (HC-MISC)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
06-07-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK. W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2021 W.P.(C) No.16513 of 2021 W.P.(C) No.38361 of 2021 An application under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2021 Vedanta Limited …… Petitioner -Versus- Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chunokoli and Another …… Opposite Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :Mr. S.K. Padhi, Senior Advocate Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 :Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S. Ghosh, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Biswal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16513 of 2021 Confederation of Captive Power Plants, Orissa …… Petitioner -Versus- Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chunokoli and Another …… Opposite Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee, Advocate 2 Page 2 of 44 Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 :Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S. Ghosh, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Biswal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38361 of 2021 M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and another …… Petitioner -Versus- Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chunokoli and Another …… Opposite Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. S. Ghosh, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Biswal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA HONOURABLE MISS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 6th July, 2023 S.Talapatra, J. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2021 [Vedanta Limited vs. Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, 3 Page 3 of 44 Chunokoli and Another], W.P.(C) No. 16513 of 2021 [Confederation of Captive Power Plants, Orissa vs. Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chunokoli and Another] and W.P.(C) No. 38361 of 2021[M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and another vs. Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chunokoli and Another] are combined for disposal by common judgment, as the Petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the legality of the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short, OERC). 2. In all these writ petitions, the jurisdiction of OERC initiating the proceeding on the basis of a petition being OERC Case No.52 of 2020 at the instance of Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL in short)-Respondent No.2 for imposing Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges on captive generating plants has been challenged. According to the Petitioners, the OERC cannot wield the jurisdiction under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The jurisdiction or power of OERC is regulated by the regulation. OERC does not have the inherent power and it has to exercise the jurisdiction within the precincts of statutory and regulatory frame work. The challenge is against the order dated 17.11.2020 and the 4 Page 4 of 44 other order passed thereafter, on the ground of res judicata in as much as the Opposite Party No.2 had filed similar petition before OERC being Case No.46 of 2012 where all the captive generating plants along with the confederation of captive power plants Odisha were made parties as the Respondents. In the said petition also the Opposite Party No.2 had claimed for fixation of Grid Support Charges in lieu of its services extended for grid stability and care. The Respondents therein challenged the validity of the proceeding on the ground that there was no provision to impose and recover the Grid Support Charges under the frame work of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. By the order dated 31.03.2014, OERC had rejected the petition filed by the Opposite Party No.2 herein. While rejecting the prayer the Opposite Party No.1, OERC, had observed that no study of collecting the relevant materials based on which Grid Support Charges can be determined. In the said order dated 31.03.2014 OERC had observed as follows: “15. We heard the parties at length and also perused the technical report submitted by OPTCL. The present installed capacity of the CGPs in the State as submitted by OPTCL is 5173 MW which is more than or equal to the capacity of other generators connected to Odisha Grid including Odisha share of power from Central Generation Stations. We agree with the contention of CCPPO that the pol1utants of the Grid like fluctuations in frequency and voltage, negative phase sequence, distortion due to harmonics etc. are the resultant 5 Page 5 of 44 effect of all synchronous machines like generators and motors of the Grid system. These pollutants are injected into the Grid not only by CGPs but also by other independent generators and machines like motors and arc furnaces of the consumers. Holding industry having CGPs only responsible for that is not correct. 16. After going through the submission of various stake holders of the grid system we conclude that the behaviour of industries having CGPs and also without CGP varies case to case basis. There are ample provisions in the Odisha Grid Code to regulate the behaviour of entities connected to the OPTCL system. Hence, a generic method of calculation of Grid Support Charges for al1 industries may not be proper. The Petitioner has failed to submit a State-wide study before us basing on which a decision could have been taken. One solution fits all can't be applicable here. So implementation of a model of another State in our State wil1 not be proper.” 17. There are enough provisions in Odisha Grid Code, 2006 to maintain qualitative supply in the grid system. Regulation 4.7 of Odisha Grid Code discuss elaborately the ideal behaviour of constituent of the Grid. OPTCL should play the role of watchdog and analyse the pollutant injected by various constituents of the grid system. CGPs and industries injecting pollution should be directed to take up remedial measures like installation of capacitors, filters for harmonics etc. so that grid pollution will be minimised. The non- compliance by any industry or industry having CGP of the Grid Code should be dealt as per Regulation 1.18 of OGC, 2006. Therefore, the prayer of OPTCL for levy of Grid Support Charges is not acceptable.” 3. It has been urged that as the prayer of OPTCL for levy of Grid Support Charges has been determined by OERC on earlier occasion, it cannot reopen the matter in as much as the Opposite Party No.2 has not challenged the said decision before any authority or forum 6 Page 6 of 44 and hence, the said decision of OERC has attained finality. Therefore, it is contended that the subsequent proceeding being OERC Case No.52 of 2020 is not maintainable under the Regulation 8(1)(a) of OERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 as its seeks initiation of the proceeding for levy of Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges for which no case has been made out by the said petition. There has been no reference in the petition filed by the Opposite Party No.2 to the statutory provision under which the said petition was filed. In absence of any enabling regulation, OERC cannot initiate a proceeding for levy of Grid Support Charges/Parallel Operating Charges. Powers to frame regulation have been conferred upon OERC by Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. But a close examination of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 would show that the said power of making regulations is limited to the area as catalogued under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. According to the Petitioners, the said petition being OERC Case No.52 of 2020 has been filed for approving the proposed Grid Support Charges at Rs.30.41/KVA/month and for issuing the appropriate order in that regard. On scrutiny of the said petition filed by the Opposite 7 Page 7 of 44 Party No.2, we do not find any reference to the earlier OERC Case No.46 of 2012 which was disposed of by the order dated 31.03.2014, Annexure-3 to the W.P.(C) No.38361 of 2021. It appears to be a fresh petition seeking the said relief. Interestingly for seeking the said relief, the Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the concept of Grid Support Charges (GSC) otherwise called as Parallel Operation Charges (POC) in some State is not a new concept and is already in practice in several other States of India since the last decade. It has been stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that captive generating plants should pay Grid Support Charges (GSC) to the Opposite Party No.2 for taking advantage of the grid connectivity which is erected, operated and maintained at a huge cost running to hundreds of crores of rupees. The Opposite Party No.2 has referred to Regulation 26 of Grid Connectivity and Open Access Regulation, 2014 (Tamil Nadu Govt. Notification dated 07.07.2014). The said regulations has been framed in exercise of power under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Regulation 26, as referred, is reproduced below: “Regulation-26: \" if the Captive Generating Plants (CGPs) opt for parallel operation with the licensee's grid for safe and secure operation of their generators and to provide quality, reliable power supply to their load, the CGPs shall pay a parallel operation charges of Rs.30,000/- per month for 8 Page 8 of 44 each MW capacity (or part thereof) of the generator. This charge is applicable to the generators availing only parallel operation with the grid without availing open access. The application fees and procedure for parallel operation of generators with grid shall be same as that of grid connectivity of generators\" The Opposite Party No.2 has made reference to some studies and to contend that the Grid Support Charges is a logical claim. The orders passed by OERC on 17.11.2020, 22.12.2020, 13.04.2021, 20.07.2021, 24.08.2021, 14.09.2021, 05.10.2021, 02.11.2021 and 16.11.2021 (see Annexure-2 to the W.P.(C) No.38361 of 2021) are in interim nature. By the order dated 17.11.2020, the following observation had been made by OERC: “The registry is directed to issue a public notice regarding the present matter inviting suggestion/views from the captive power plants along with other interested person(s)/organizations on or before 08.12.2020. The petitioner is directed to file its rejoinder to the reply/views of the respondents by 15.12.2020. 5. Post the matter on 22.12.2020 at 11.00 AM for hearing on question of admission as well as on merit. No further notice shall be issued to the parties concerned in this regard.” The same observation or direction had been replicated in the subsequent order for extending the time. On scrutiny of the orders filed by the Petitioners, it appears that no hearing had taken place either on the question of admission or on merit. 9 Page 9 of 44 5. We have heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s Tata Steel Ltd. and another, the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38361 of 2021, Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Vedanta Limited, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2021 and Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the Confederation of Captive Power Plants, Orissa, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16513 of 2021. We have also heard Mr. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for OERC, the Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OPTCL, the Opposite Party No.2 in all these three cases. 6. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated that in view of the order dated 31.03.2014 as referred above, OERC cannot proceed with the OERC Case No.52 of 2020. In course of his submission, he has brought to our notice, the fact that OPTCL has proceeded to file another case being Case No.64 of 2016. The petition as filed by OPTCL is part of the interlocutory application filed by the Petitioners for vacation of stay. It has been stated also that without going into the merit of that petition, OERC allowed levy qua GSC/POC. It has been alleged by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior 10 Page 10 of 44 Counsel that OPTCL has suppressed the order as passed in their earlier petition being OERC Case No.46 of 2012. Thereafter, the OERC Case No.52 of 2020 was filed by the Opposite Party No.2 herein. The OERC Case No.46 of 2012 was decided by the Commission, but the decision as rendered by OERC has not been challenged before the appellate authority by any party. According to Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel, the framework proceeding initiated by OPTCL before OERC is not maintainable in as much as no statutory framework has been brought into force under the Electricity Act, 2003, based on which OPTCL can ask for levy of GSC/POC only upon the CGPs. OPTCL in its petition has relied upon the regulations of different States in order to justify the levy of GSC/POC upon CGPs. No such regulation is available in the State of Odisha. The order dated 15.01.2014 as passed in the OERC Case No.46 of 2012 has been suppressed. Identical issue was determined in the said former proceeding, OPTCL’s subsequent petition being the OERC Case No.52 of 2020 is, therefore, unsustainable on the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel has succinctly submitted that from a bare reading of said petition being OERC Case No.52 of 2020, it would transpire that, that it was not a petition under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, even the jurisdiction of 11 Page 11 of 44 review cannot be exercised by OERC. It has however, not been denied by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel that in some other States, the levy of GSC/POC on the CGPs is exigible. According to Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel, since the GSC/POC is not the part of the tariff regime, OERC cannot exercise any jurisdiction to determine such charges. For the reason that the Commissions (Central or State) can only determine tariff of transmission licensees in terms of Sections 61, 62, 64, 79(1)(c), 79(1)(d), 86(1)(a) and 86(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel, since the Commission and the Tribunal are the creature of the statute, they have to perform or act within the four corners of the said statute. In this regard, he has made reference to Smt Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s Shaw Brothers:1992(1) SCC 534, Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India: (2003) 3 SCC 186 and N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and Ors: (2004) 2 SCC 579. 7. In Gauri Shanker v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 349 and Amita v. Union of India: (2005) 13 SCC 721 as relied on by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel it has been held that quasi-judicial bodies or Tribunal cannot take any function which is beyond its jurisdiction and if taken that would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12 Page 12 of 44 8. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel on Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others: 2019 SCC Online SC 1537, where the apex Court has upheld the levy of Grid Support Charges. But according to Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel, Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1988 has provided the special and specific power to the State Regulatory Commission to determine revenue in addition to tariff. But, no such provision is available in the State of Odisha. The scope of functioning of the transmission licensees has been made exhaustive and codified. Licensees only provide one service i.e. open access and they are permitted to charge/levy transmission charges for the said service. There is no additional service contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003 which provides levy of GSC/POC only to CGPs by the transmission licensees. 9. Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the Confederation of Captive Power Plants Orissa, the Petitioner of W.P.(C) No.16513 of 2021 has reiterated the pleas raised by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the said Petitioner has contended that the OERC inherently lacks the jurisdiction to 13 Page 13 of 44 entertain the petition filed by OPTCL for levying of new charge (Grid Support Charges/Parallel Operation Charges) on CGPs for use of grid. OERC has determined the transmission charges, connectivity charges and open access charges. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has further stated that a declaration be made by this Court that the proceeding initiated by OERC is without jurisdiction and as such, all the orders are nonest. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has formulated the following objection to hold that the proceeding as initiated by OERC at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL is not maintainable, for the primary reason that OERC has no jurisdiction to determine GSC/POC only upon CGPs. The propositions are as follows: (i) Statute, Electricity Act, 2003, does not provide for levy GSC/POC only upon CGPs. (ii) Regulations already govern the field; and (iii) This Court can intervene and quash the impugned proceedings. That apart, the proceedings before the Opposite Party No.1 are barred by res judicata. The decision of the apex Court in Rain Calcining case is not applicable in the present context. 14 Page 14 of 44 10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has further stated that even though the Opposite Party No.2 has relied upon the regulation of the different States in order to justify levy of GSC/POC upon the CGPs, but no reference has been made to any particular regulation of OERC in the petition, in support of the claim for levy of GSC/POC upon the CGPs, as there is no existence of such regulation framed by OERC. Having referred to the order passed in the OERC Case No.46 of 2012, it has been contended that on the same issue, no proceeding can be taken up before OERC in as much as OERC does not have the jurisdiction to levy of GSC/POC upon CGPs. 11. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has reminded this Court that the jurisdiction of OERC is circumscribed by the provision of Electricity Act, 2003. The Commission has to function and act within the four corners with the statute. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions M/s Shaw Brothers (supra), Paragraph-19, Cellular Operators Assn. of India (supra) Paragraph-27 and N.C. Daoundial (supra) Paragraph-14. In order to demonstrate the absence of jurisdiction, Mr. Mukherjee has placed the following state of object provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003: 15 Page 15 of 44 (a) Statement of Object and Reasons of the EA 2003, including Section 4(i) and Section 2 (47) of the EA 2003 for definition of open access. (b) Section 2(74) of the EA 2003 for definition of transmission. (c) Section 2 (76) of the EA 2003 for definition of wheeling. (d) Section 7 of the EA 2003 for showing the function of the generating company and requirements for setting up of generating station. (e) Section 9 of the EA 2003 for definition and function of captive generation. (f) Section 10 of the EA 2003 for showing the duties of generating companies. (g) Section 49 of the EA 2003 on the aspect of supply of electricity. (h) Section 62 of the EA 2003 on determination of tariff. (i) Section 29 of the EA 2003 on function of the Central Commission and 16 Page 16 of 44 (j) Section 86 of the EA 2003 on function of the State Commission. 12. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Confederation of Captive Power Plants Orissa has made a categorical statement that CGPs cannot be treated differently than the generating plants. There cannot be any such discrimination while imposing any charge, unless specified under the statute. The Electricity Act, 2003 contemplates promotion of the captive generation and as such, levy of POC is not traceable to any provision of the said Act, particularly upon CGPs. Thus, he has contended further that transmission charges are determined by OERC like any other State Regulatory Commission. But, as there is no separate service in the nature of grid service which the transmission licensee provide to CGPs and not to other generating companies, hence, seeking to collect GSC/POC only from such CGPs is unsustainable. 13. In response to the reply filed by the OPTCL, the Opposite Party No.2, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has submitted that their claim is wholly misconceived and fundamentally flawed. OERC by conducting its proceeding can determine GSC/POC under the existing 17 Page 17 of 44 legal regime. There is no power with OERC, to frame the regulation for charging GSC/POC. Following decisions of the apex Court have relied on to show that the statute has to provide the enabling provision: (a) District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank: (2005) 1 SCC 496 (b) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India: (2011) 10 SCC 292 (c) Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1 (d) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors: (1997) 5 SCC 482 14. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has contended that as per Section 181 (2) of the Electricity Act a residuary power is available with the Commission to frame regulations. Further, Section 181(2) provides a list where regulations can be framed and each entry contained therein finds a mention of a particular provision. It is relevant to note that there is no provision which is relatable to imposition of any GSC/POC only upon CGPs in the said entries of Section 181(2). Hence, it has been contended that the general residuary power available under Section 181(2) cannot be used to frame a regulation for imposing a charge only and enabling upon CGPs, for which there should be a statutory 18 Page 18 of 44 provision. Reference has been made to the apex court decision in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta and Ors: (2021) 7 SCC 209 (paras 87 & 90). 15. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has further contended that what cannot be done directly under a law cannot be done indirectly as well. Reliance has been placed on Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab and Ors.: (2019) 16 SCC 95 (para 44) and S.S. Bola & Ors. v. B.D. Sardana & Ors.: (1997) 8 SCC 522 (para 108). In the states where levy on CGPs are in vogue they have done so by the statutory reforms. As OERC lacks in jurisdiction, this Court should interfere with the proceeding. Mr. Kukherjee, learned counsel has also raised the objection based on the doctrine of res judicata. 16. Reference has been made to the order dated 31.03.2014 passed in the Case No.46 of 2012, which has been reproduced above substantively. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel, has also referred to the order dated 23.03.2017 delivered in OERC Case No.64 of 2016 granting liberty to OPTCL to file a petition seeking imposition of GSC/POC, after the order dated 31.03.2014 was passed in OERC Case NO.46 of 2012. It appears that in exercise of the said liberty provided by the order 19 Page 19 of 44 dated 23.03.2017, as reproduced below, OPTCL has filed their further petition being OERC Case No.52 of 2020: “264. OPTCL has proposed to claim a Reliability Support Charge for connectivity of CGP @ Rs.l lakh/MW/annum on the installed capacity. The claim of OPTCL appears to have a ground in this matter since CGPs are dependent on the Grid for various reasons such as emergency drawal and VAR support etc. But at this instant we are unable to address the same. However, this issue can be deliberated if OPTCL comes through a separate petition with relevant information.” 17. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has taken a slightly different stand, so far as the question of review of the order dated 31.03.2014 is concerned. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has also embarked on whether the said order dated 23.03.2017 was challenged by the Petitioners or not. We have been informed that the said order has not been challenged. In support of his contention as regard res judicata Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has referred to another apex court decision in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor: (2000) 1 SCC 644 where the apex court held that the precedent law must be followed by all concerned. Deviation from the same is unknown to law. A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. We are of the considered view that the said decision cannot be applied in the present case, merely for the finding of OERC that the prayer of 20 Page 20 of 44 OPTCL for levy of Grid Support Charges is not acceptable. With all humility, we observe that, that finding is not in regard to the jurisdiction of OERC in respect of a proceeding for deliberating levy of GSC/ POC. The said observation is contextant and was made as OPTCL could not satisfy OERC as regards the necessity of levy of GSC/POC. Therefore, even the decision as relied on by Mr. Mukherjee in Govt. of A.P. v. A.P. Jaiswal: (2001) 1 SCC 748 cannot be applied. The said decision is rests on precedent and on the duty of following the precedent, when the precedent is considered binding. He has also stated that Rain Calcining Limited (supra) cannot be applied in the present case in as much as in that case the statutory arrangement was entirely different. We have already made the reference in this regard, while recording the submission of Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel. Finally, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel has submitted that if GSC/POC is not part of the tariff regime, no Commission (OERC) has any jurisdiction to determine such charges. 18. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has supported the contentions of Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel. He has contended that Section 181 of the Electricity 21 Page 21 of 44 Act, 2003 has given the general power of making regulations to the State Commission consistent with the provision of the Act and of framing Rules to implement the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sub- Section (2) of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has provided the specific power, but without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-Section (1), meaning thereby, even though sub-Section (2) catalogues the powers for framing regulation on the subject as expressly embodied but those will not curb the general power of the State Commission in framing the regulation. The said Commission has been obligated that after making the regulation by notification that shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each house of the State legislature and where it consist of one house before that house. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, from a bare reading of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 any tariff or charge if imposed that can only be done by framing regulation. But there is no regulation, as in the State of Andhra Pradesh, to impose levy of GSC/POC on the CGPs. Thus, according to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, the proceeding that has been taken up by OERC is wholly invalid. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has stated that there is no authority of law for imposing levy of GSC/POC. According to Mr. 22 Page 22 of 44 Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, the Electricity Regulation Commission (OERC) discharges dual responsibilities viz, (i) it frames the regulation in exercise of statutory power vested in Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and (ii) It decides a dispute or approves tariff in exercise of its power vested under Sections 86 and 61 of the Electricity Act. However, while deciding any dispute or approving any tariff, it is bound by the regulation framed by it. The State Regulatory Commission cannot go beyond or act in conflict with the regulations framed by it. The State Electricity Regulation Commission does not have inherent power to conduct the proceeding to introduce a new regulation. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has robustly raised the point of res judicata and has also pointed out that in absence of review power, OERC cannot review its earlier order. Even the technical report which came into existence after the previous order will not enable OERC to review its earlier order. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has made a reference to Article 265 of the Constitution of India which forbids any collection of tax without authority of law. However, this point has been raised only in the time of hearing. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, the action of the OERC is grossly arbitrary, as the same is dehors the statutory framework and for that reason, the said proceeding should be 23 Page 23 of 44 shot down being illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, without jurisdiction and for being contrary to the statutory framework. 19. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OPTCL, the Opposite Party No.2, has in order to repel the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners stated that the Petitioners have grossly misconstrued the provision of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this regard, Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has contended that before filing the petition for Grid Support Charges (GSC) at Rs.30.41/KVA/month the Opposite Party No.2 had served notice on it CGPs. It reveals inter alia that for a fault at the PCC, Grid is contributing substantial fault-current, but the contribution of CGPs is minimal except in rare cases. In Paragraph-37 of the petition being OERC Case No.52 of 2020, an extract of the study report in the form of Table No.1 has been reproduced. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it can be inferred therefrom that during the fault conditions i.e. Single Line to ground (SLG) and Three Phase to Ground (Bolted fault) major quantum of fault current flows from the Grid, which not only saves the CGP equipment, rather saves failure of the same. Benefit accrued by the CGP owners is the long life of equipments and 24 Page 24 of 44 uninterrupted power flow for maintaining their production activity at the courtesy of OPTCL Grid System. It has been also noted that the State Grid's inertia and ability to absorb jerks/shocks when the Bulk load of the CGP is thrown off for whatsoever reason helps avoiding tripping of the CGP Generator due to over speeding. In the Transient Study the aforementioned CGPs have been divided into three categories, namely, (i) Category-A Unit size 100 MW and installed capacity 500 MW, (ii) Category-B Unit size 50 and installed capacity 100 less than 500 MW and (iii) Category-C Unit size 10 less than 50MW and installed capacity less than 50 MW. According to the survey, Category-A-CGPs use state of the art technology and are moderately dependent on the Grid, but so far as the Category-B is concerned, it requires frequent support of the Gird. Category-C CGPs have been compared with small HT Commercial Loads which, normally, injects power to Grid. Therefore, those CGPs has been proposed to be treated as in floating condition. In the petition, some projected calculation has been made to arrive at the rate of Grid Support Charges at Rs.30.41/KVA/Month. It is pointed out by Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel the Opposite Party No.2 has filed the reply in W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.16513 of 2021. The contentions in those counter affidavits are found on comparison to be 25 Page 25 of 44 exactly identical. According to the Opposite Party No.2, the writ petition is not maintainable in as much as, against the order of OERC, there is appellate provision under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under this Act (except under section 127) or an order made by the Appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Apart from that, the issues as raised by the Petitioners regarding res judicata or discrimination with captive power plants can also be adjudicated by the appellate tribunal. When there is efficacious statutory remedy is available, these petitions as filed by the Petitioners cannot be maintained. The very issue of determination of Grid Support Charges is a complicated one requiring opinion of the scientific, technical and financial experts which cannot be determined in the writ proceeding. The Petitioners have challenged the claim for imposition of GSC/POC. But no order has been passed deciding the admissibility of such petition. Therefore, according to Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel, the writ petitions are also premature. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has referred to Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (the order 26 Page 26 of 44 dated 23.05.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.10036 of 2013 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2) where it has been observed as under: “9. In the case at hand, since the constitutional validity of a Regulation is not questioned, it is only the order passed by the State Commission which is being challenged, the remedy in the considered opinion of this Court, lies under Section 111 of 2003 Act. 30. Having thus considered, the objection as to maintainability of Appeal under Section 41 of Adhiniyam 2000 and Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is upheld. 31. Consequently, the appeals and petitions are disposed of finally with liberty to avail efficacious statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 111 of2003 Act.” 20. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel thereafter, having relied on Paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit has contended that no final order or interim order affecting any interest of the Petitioners have been passed by OERC. The orders which are challenged are relating to issue of notice to the Respondents in the proceeding before OERC to file their response in respect of the petition filed by the Respondent No.2 herein. It has been contended in the Paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit that the Respondent No.1-OERC was pleased to defer the petition to 13.04.2021 for hearing on admission. As such, it is apparent that no 27 Page 27 of 44 order has been passed taking final decision on any aspect of the matter. On the contrary, the objections raised by the Petitioners herein have been accepted for consideration by OERC. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has contended that OERC has taken up adjudication on imposition of the Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges. Having referred to the order dated 31.03.2014, it has been contended that the said order was modified by the subsequent order dated 23.03.2017 to the extent that the Opposite Party No.2 herein has been granted liberty to approach OERC, the Opposite Party No.1 herein, by a separate petition. Hence, the proceeding being OERC Case No.52 of 2020 cannot be held barred by res judicata. 21. The order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Case No.64 of 2016 (Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2) has been examined by us. According to the Opposite Party No.2, the material facts have been suppressed while filing the Interlocutory Application No.7287/2021 for obtaining an interim order staying the proceeding. Such order has been passed by this Court on 06.07.2021. 22. But the fundamental objections as raised by the Opposite Party No.2 are- (a) the term \"tariff' includes within its ambit not only the 28 Page 28 of 44 fixation of rates but also the rules and regulations relating to it. If Section 61 is read with Section 62 of the EA, it becomes clear that the ‘Appropriate Commission’ shall determine the actual tariff. Further, if Section 62 is read with Section 64 EA, according to the Opposite Party No.2, it becomes clear that the tariff fixation like price fixation is legislative in character. Any decision taken in the manner as aforesaid is appealable under Section 111 EA. According to Opposite Party No.2, EA provides implicit powers in governing the electricity regulatory regime. At this juncture, reliance has been placed by the Opposite Party No.2 on Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited & Others: (2019) SCC Online SC 1537. It has been held in Rain Calcining Limited (supra) as follows: “72. Any Government Order or Incentive Scheme does not govern the Grid Support Charges. Grid Code is the basis for levy of the Grid Support Charges, which came to be approved by the Commission on 26.5.2001. The same is also reflected in the impugned order. Thus, in case of installation of another CPP, that would be an additional load on the grid, and there is no embargo for setting up additional grid CPP in the form of expansion as grid acts as cushioning. The Grid Support Charges can be levied, and the order dated 8.2.2002 of the Commission is, thus on the parity of the reasonings, has to be upheld considering the provisions of Section 21 (3) of the Reforms Act, 1998. Under section 11 read with section 26 of the Reforms Act, 1998, all fixed charges under the distribution and Grid Support Charges are leviable only at the instance of a distribution company, and because of the discussion above, the Commission has the powers to 29 Page 29 of 44 determine it. In the agreements also there is a power where the Board could have fixed the Grid Support Charge unilaterally, but because of Reforms Act, 1998 came to be enacted, the application was filed in the Commission. After that, the Commission has passed the order in accordance with the law. We find no fault in the same. Thus, the order of the Commission concerning the Grid Support Charges has to be upheld. The judgment and order of the High Court are liable to be set aside concerning wheeling charges as well as Grid Support Charges.” [Emphasis added] 23. Based on the said decision of the Opposite Party No.2, Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the GSC is chargeable within the present statutory scheme of electricity laws. Two appellate Tribunal judgments, namely, Urla Industries Association v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission in Appeal No.99 of 2006 (decided on 12.09.2006) and Salasar Steel & Power Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Power Compnay Ltd. in Appeal No.72 of 2015 (decided on 17.02.2016) have also been relied on to demonstrate that Grid Support Charges can be realized for Parallel Operation, as the transmission system cannot be allowed to be accessed for the default supply by the Grid without payment of Grid Support Charges. Another decision of the Appellate Tribunal on imposition of GSC/POC in the State of Gujarat has been referred. In Paschim Gujarat 30 Page 30 of 44 Vij Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Anr, in Appeal No.74 of 2013 [decided on 04.04.2014] it has been held that GSC/POC are levied in several States by the order of the State Commission. Therefore, the argument that there was no legal sanction of levy of POC is not acceptable. Even though, we are referring to those decisions as relied by the Opposite Party No.2 but we are not oblivious that these decisions do not create any precedent in any manner. Those, however, may be leveraged for persuasive reasons. The Opposite Party No.2 has also mentioned in their counter affidavit that Tamil Nadu Electricity Commission in Regulation 26 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Grid Connectivity and Intra-State Open Access Regulations, 2014 has made the following provision with respect to GSC/POC: “26.Parallel Operation Charges.- If the Captive Generating Plants (CGPs) opt for parallel operation with the licensee's grid for safe and secure operation of their generators and to provide quality, reliable power supply to their load, the CGPs shall pay a parallel operation charges of Rs.30,000/- per month for each MW capacity (or part thereof) of the generator. This charge is applicable to the generators availing only parallel operation with the grid without availing open access. The application fees and procedure for parallel operation of generators with grid shall be same as that of grid connectivity of generators.” 31 Page 31 of 44 24. The Opposite Party No.2 has seriously contested the claim that the proceeding under challenge is barred by res judicata. OERC has the jurisdiction to decide the Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges under Section 111 of the Electricity Act. It has been contended that in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd, Appeal No.120 of 2009 (decided on 18.02.2011), it has been observed that the gain to the Captive Power Plant is quite substantial in case there is grid support. Owing to the above said substantial gains to the Captive Power Plant by operating in parallel with the grid, the parallel operation charges are levied from the Captive Power Plant. The dispute was raised on levy of Parallel Operation Charges by the distribution licensee. It is submitted that such dispute can be adjudicated by the State Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 catalogues the various functions of the State Commission. Clause (f) under sub-Section (1) of Section 86 provides as follows: “(f)adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration.” 25. We should observe at this juncture that, the said power is completely different from the power of framing regulation for charging 32 Page 32 of 44 Grid Support Charges (GSC) or Parallel Operation Charges (POC). We would address this aspect of the matter in the latter part of this judgment. 26. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has quite robustly contended that, if Section 62, EA read with Section 64, EA is read together, it becomes amply clear the tariff fixation like price fixation is legislative in character. The power as provided under Section 86 (1) (f) is legislative in nature. In this regard, reference has also been made to Section 86 (1) (a), EA. Section 86 (1) (a), EA provides that any dispute regarding the availability of transmission facility shall be adjudicated upon by the Commission. We are of the view that this provision does not as well empower the commission to introduce a new charge which is not available under the statute or Rules and Regulations made thereunder in a proceeding. 27. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel while summing-up of his submission has contended that the State Commission has been conferred with power to levy charges such as GCC/Reliability Support Charge under various provisions of the Act. It is submitted that as per the provision of the Act, the State Commission has inherent powers to make regulations under Section 181(1) and 2 (o), EA. The State 33 Page 33 of 44 Commission is empowered to make certain regulations which are designed for generating revenue for the other business and for regulation of transmission charges. Hence, if GSC is realized from CGPs, the end benefit will go to the rest of the consumers, and not to Respondent No.2, OPTCL. It has been contended by Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel that provision under Section 181 of the Act has to be read as a whole, not in a selective manner, while considering the fact that the said provision confers ample power on the State Commission. It has been further contended that the captive power plants (CPPs) cannot be allowed to derive the Grid Support without compensating for the same because of which the ultimate burden of such compensation goes to the ordinary consumers. Such arrangement is highly inequitable, continuance of which would be grossly unjustifiable. 28. Having noted the submission made by the counsel for the parties and considering the various provisions of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations 2020, we do not find any specific or relevant provision in respect of levy of GSC/POC. But Regulation 6 of the said Regulations 2020 by way of a proviso provides that in case connectivity 34 Page 34 of 44 of a generating station, including captive generating plant or consumer is granted to the intra-State transmission system of an intra-State transmission licensee other than the STU, a tripartite agreement as provided in the Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2007 shall be signed between the applicant, the STU and such intra-State transmission licensee. In the case in hand, there is no existence of any agreement embodying any condition in respect of payment of the Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges nor there is any independent regulation for levy of such charge. 29. From the discussion made above, two pertinent questions emerge for our consideration. Those are: (i) Whether by a proceeding which according to Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has been drawn under Section 62 read with Section 64, EA, the Grid Support Charges (GSC) and Parallel Operation Charges (POC) can be determined by a State Commission; and 35 Page 35 of 44 (ii) Whether without framing any regulation for levy of GSC/POC, a proceeding for determining the dispute, even if taken under Section 181, EA is maintainable? For purpose of reference, we may re-visit provision of Section 181, EA. There cannot be iota of dispute that by Section 181 EA, the State Commission has been given the power to make regulations generally and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power contained in sub-Section (1). While summing-up Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the proceeding is covered by sub-Section (2), Clause (o) of Section 181 EA as reproduced before. 30 It appears that the submission of Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel is mutually destructive as the powers provided under Sections 62 and 64 EA have been conferred for completely different purposes. Section 62, EA confers power to the appropriate Commission for determination of tariff in accordance with provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 for- (a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee (b) transmission of electricity 36 Page 36 of 44 (c) wheeling of electricity (d) retail sale of electricity From a wholesome reading of the said provision, it would appear that such tariff shall be determined only in accordance with the provision of this Act which would include the regulation made under Section 181, EA. Power conferred under Section 62, EA is extended to amend the tariff in the same manner. Section 62, EA does not have any bearing as such and that is the reason why Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has asked this Court to read the said provision with Section 64, EA, which lays down the procedure for tariff order. We are in total disagreement with Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel that if Sections 62 and 64, EA are read conjointly then, the Appropriate Commission has the power to directly impose any tariff or charge without any provision available in the Electricity Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. At present, we are not concerned with the procedure for the tariff order. Section 62, EA provides the power of determining tariff and Section 64 lays down the procedure to determine the tariff. In absence of any provision EA or regulation made thereunder, the Appropriate Commission may determine any charge or tariff. In our considered 37 Page 37 of 44 opinion, the provision made under Sections 62 and 64, EA is distinct from the provision of framing the regulation. 31. The other important question, as raised, is that whether the writ petition is maintainable, as there is no order affecting the Petitioners and as the Petitioners have been participating in the proceeding, when the proceeding is to be terminated. Before we deal with the above ancillary question, we would like to observe that in view of the order dated 23.03.2017, as referred above, the objection based on the doctrine of res judicata becomes inconsequential as the said order, as it appears from the records has not been challenged by the Petitioners. The other objections are that under Section 111, EA, the provision for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal has been provided and hence, any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under EA except under Section 127 or an order made by the Appropriate Commission under the Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for electricity. This objection is also of no substance in as much as it has been acceded to by the Opposite Party No.2 that no final order has been passed and the orders as challenged do not in any manner affect the Petitioners. Therefore, the question that deserves consideration is whether during pendency of the proceeding in which the Petitioners have participated by 38 Page 38 of 44 filing their reply can challenge a proceeding itself in a writ proceeding? If the State Commission does not have any power or jurisdiction to adjudicate any matter which has been brought before it then, the two remedies are available to the person who intends to challenge the maintainability. Those are- (i) to challenge the same in the same proceeding and (ii) to go to the superior Court challenging the validity of such proceeding. Any order passed in ignorance of the jurisdictional fact renders the said order nullity. It is well settled that a Court or Tribunal or Commission cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly (Raza Textile Ltd. v. ITO: AIR 1973 SC 1362). It has been also enunciated in Shrisht Dhawan (supra) that no statutory authority or Tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter which the statute does not confer on it and, if by deciding erroneously the fact on which the jurisdiction depends, the Court or Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction, then the order is vitiated. In Cellular Operators Association (supra) it has been held that the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court or the Tribunal depends upon the relevant statute. Unless such jurisdiction is conferred by the statute, jurisdiction cannot be created by the Court or the Tribunal. 39 Page 39 of 44 32. The dispute in the case in hand is levy of GSC/POC. It is not a dispute for determining the tariff. The fundamental dispute has to be understood as a dispute- whether any provision is available in the Electricity Act, 2003 or the regulation made thereunder for levy of the charges. If such provision is available, then the exercise for determining the charge or tariff can be taken by the State Commission, the Opposite Party No.1. It is true that even if provision for levy of GSC/POC were provided by the statute, then the charge ought to have been determined by the State Commission after hearing the interested persons. There cannot be any debate that Section 181, EA provides the power to the State Commission to make regulation by a notification. Such power is equivalent to power of legislating. Sub-Section (1) of Section 181, EA is the general power whereas sub-Section (2) of Section 181, EA is a power to exercise in the demarcated areas, but without prejudice to the generality of power. Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel has referred to Clause (o) under sub-Section (2) of Section 181, EA, we take this provision as an illustration for purpose of the present context. Its purpose, as contended, is mobilise revenues from other businesses to be utilized for reduction of the transmission and wheeling charges, under 40 Page 40 of 44 proviso to Section 41, EA. Section 41, EA empowers the transmission licensee for optimum utilization of its assets. As we have noted, Section 9, EA makes provision to enable the ‘person’ construct, maintain or operate captive generating plants and dedicated transmission lines. The areas of operation of captive generating plants have been comprehensively provided under that Section. We should note that no provision has been made thereunder, if under any occasion, the captive generating plants is required to draw electricity from the grid for their advantage or for emergency whether any charge can be levied on them or not. In the state of Tamil Nadu as referred by the parties, a specific regulation has been made. Tamil Nadu Electricity Commission has framed a specific regulation in the form of Regulation 26 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Grid Connectivity and Intra-State Open Access Regulation, 2014. The said regulation has been reproduced hereunder (See Annexure-E/2). According to us, the correct approach should be to frame the regulation for levy of Grid Support Charge or Parallel Operation Charges in exercise of the power as conferred by Section 181, EA by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 could have approached the Opposite Party No.1 for framing of such regulation. In response to the question no.1 as formulated above, we 41 Page 41 of 44 hold that in absence of regulation for levy of Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charges, the proceeding under challenge cannot be treated as a proceeding under Section 62 EA read with Section 64 EA. 33. In the written brief, submitted by the Opposite Party No.2, it has been asserted that the Respondent No.1-Commission has been conferred with ample power to levy charge such as GCC reliability support charge under various provision of the Act. It is submitted that as per the provision of the Act, the State Commission has inherent power to make regulation under Sections 181 (1) and 2 (o), EA and the Respondent No.1-Commission has been authorized to make regulation for channelising revenues from the other business for reducing the transmission charges. Unless the regulation to that effect is framed, no such charge called Grid Support Charges or Parallel Operation Charge can be levied on the captive generating plants. There may be strong justification for introduction and realization of such charge, but unless the regulation for levy of such charges is enacted, the State Commission cannot go for determining the charge. After enacting the regulation, the tariff or the charge may be determined by the Commission following the procedure as laid down in Section 64, EA. In this regard, we are 42 Page 42 of 44 persuaded to refer to the order dated 23.03.2017 as passed in the OERC Case No.64 of 2016 where the Petitioners were also parties. By the said order, it was held inter alia as follows: “Reliability Support Charge: 264. OPTCL has proposed to claim a Reliability Support Charge for connectivity of CGP @ Rs.1lakh/MW/annum on the installed capacity. The claim of OPTCL appears to have a ground in this matter since CGPs are dependent on the Grid for various reasons such as emergency drawal and VAR support etc. But at this instant we are unable to address the same. However, this issue can be deliberated if OPTCL comes through a separate petition with relevant information.” We would hasten to add that Regulation cannot be made in the proceeding as drawn up as the said proceeding is entirely misconceived in as much as OERC does not have or wield jurisdiction to draw such proceeding for levying Grid Support Charges or Parallel Support Charges. According to us, a correct stand would have been by the Opposite Party No.1, if it held that for levy of GSC/POC cannot be determined by the said proceeding. We should hold further that OERC ought to have shot down the proceeding on the ground of non- maintainability for lack of its jurisdiction. 34. The ancillary question that has emerged is that whether in pendency of the proceeding, the writ petition can be maintained. We 43 Page 43 of 44 firmly observe that the Petitioners ought to have waited for the decision of the Opposite Party No.1. But at the same time, since the Opposite Party No.1 does not have any jurisdiction, they are not prohibited from approaching this Court seeking the reliefs as sought hereunder. In this regard, we may refer to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai &Ors.: (1988) 8 SCC 1 where the apex Court has laid down the law in the following manner: “20.Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.” [Emphasis added] As such, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable. 35. As the cumulative effect of all these observations as made above, we set aside the proceeding being the OERC Case No.52 of 2020 by declaring that the orders passed in that proceeding as ultra vires, void ab initio and without any effect whatsoever on the charges. It is our duty to observe that if the Opposite Party No.2 filed a separate application 44 Page 44 of 44 urging the Opposite Party No.1 for examining whether the levy of GSC/POC is justifiable and if found justifiable, to frame the appropriate regulation in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Opposite Party No.1, in that event, the Opposite Party No.1 shall examine the matter, not initiating a proceeding, but by invoking its powers as provided under Section 181, EA. 36. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. 37. There shall be no costs in the circumstances of the case. …………………………… ( S. Talapatra, J.) Savitri Ratho, J. I agree. …………………………… (Savitri Ratho, J.) Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2023 11:44:34 Signature Not Verified "
Other Referred Cases
Smt Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s Shaw Brothers, Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India, N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, M/s Shaw Brothers v. Smt Shrisht Dhawan, Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India, N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, Amita v. Union of India, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited and Others, District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Ors v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors
Laws Referred To
Electricity Act, 2003
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Early Retirement Letter
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026