MC(WPC)/214/2022 of MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION AND ANR. Vs MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION AND 10 ORS. on 16 December 2022

Conclusion

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

MC(WPC) No. 214 of 2022In WP(C) No. 515 of 2022

Date of order: 16.12.2022

Meghalaya Power Distribution vs Meghalaya State Electricity Corporation & anr Commission & ors

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance:For the Applicant : Mr A. Kumar, AG with Mr S. Sahay, GA Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, GA Ms S. Laloo, Ga For the Respondents : Mr K. Paul, Sr Adv. with Mr S. Thapa, Adv. Mr S. Chanda, Adv. i) Whether approved for Yes/No reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

The writ petition is directed against an order dated December 6, 2022 passed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission at an interim stage of the proceedings instituted before it by the private respondents herein.

2. There is no dispute that the order impugned is amenable to an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. However, the petitioning power company submits that the alternative remedy is neither efficacious nor appropriate in the present case, particularly since the primary prayer in the petition before the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is contrary to a finding rendered in an order dated September 5, 2022 passed by this Court.

4. Ordinarily, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the writ court exercises a degree of self-restraint before entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed without availing of the regular statutory remedy. The exceptional situations in which the alternative remedy is disregarded and the writ petition is received may be when the order impugned is found to be in breach of the principles of natural justice or wholly without jurisdiction or absurd to the meanest mind.

5. In the present case, the writ petitioners claim that since the private respondents herein had earlier approached this Court, the objection now raised that the writ court should not entertain the present petition would not lie in their mouth. However, such contention is unacceptable.

6. It is possible that in view of the order dated September 5, 2022 passed by this Court, there may not be any merit in the petition filed by the private respondents before the Commission. However, such an argument may be carried in appeal and merely because the petition has been entertained or an interim order has been passed does not amount to the Commission having acted without jurisdiction of the kind that would excite the writ court to receive the petition without the alternative remedy being exhausted.

7. The merits of the matter have not been gone into. The petitioning power company is permitted to avail of the alternative remedy by urging whatever ground that may be available to it in accordance with law.

8. WP(C) No. No. 515 of 2022 along with MC(WPC) No. 214 of 2022 are disposed of without going into the merits of the matter.

9. There will be no order as to costs.

(W. Diengdoh) Judge

(Sanjib Banerjee) Chief Justice

Meghalaya 16.12.2022 “Sylvana PS”