CASE NO. 9 of 1997
ORDER No.003 DATED 29th APRIL, 1997
Sri A. R. Mohanty, Member
In the matter of application by Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar.
Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited - Petitioner
For the Petitioner:
1. This is a petition filed on 29.03.1997 by Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) seeking, review of Commission's Order No.009 dated 12.03.97 passed in case No. 4/97 in the matter of tariff for the year 1997-98.
2. The matter was heard on 22.04.97 for admission and final disposal.
3. The Petitioner Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited was a holder of provisional licence for transmission and supply of electricity in the State issued by the Government of Orissa till 31st March, 1997. Commission by it's order No.5 aft. 31.03.97 has also issued two licences for 30 years to GRIDCO for "Transmission and Bulk Supply" and "Distribution and Retail Supply" in the State of Orissa with effect from 01.04.97.
4. GRIDCO as a holder of provisional licence had filed tariff proposal before the Commission and Commission had delivered its order on 12.03.97 for the tariff and charges to be effective from 01.04.97. The order was passed after public hearing on 21st. 22nd & 24th February. 1997. The Commission Advisory Committee was also consulted as provided under Section 26 of OER Act before delivery of order.
5. GRIDCO in its petition dated 27.03.97 has brought to Commission's attention the issues like system losses (consisting, technical and non-technical losses), cost of power and reasonable return as per the sixth schedule of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Petition also invites Commission's attention to the issue of subsidies GRIDCO is expected to receive from the different departments of the State Government for implementing the rural electrification work, lift irrigation work and for effecting, supply of NTPC power to export oriented units.
6. Before considering the petition for review the question of maintainability has to be decided first. A court or tribunal has no inherent power of review. It must be conferred by law specifically or by implication. Section 10(1)(f) of OER Act, 1995 states that the Commission shall, for the purposes of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act, have the powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely, the review of its decisions, directions and orders.
7. Such provision of the Act leads to the provisions
of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. While qualifying for the review of
judgment, Order 47 Rule 1 states
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case of which he applies for the review.
8. We have also looked at Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure on matter of review Section l 14 states that
"any person considering himself aggrieved :
may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
9. Looking to the above provisions of Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the question of maintainability of this Petition for review. it is established that Commission is competent to review its own order.
10. Coming to the subject of admission, the Commission
has carefully gone through the contents of the Petition. During the hearing on 22.04.97.
Commission made it clear to the petitioner about the limited jurisdiction for review of
its order as provided in Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of
the Commission is bounded by the contours fixed by the language used by Order 47 rule 1.
Commission may admit a review on three specified grounds namely
11. Applying the above contours or the boundaries set out by the code of Civil Procedure in Order 47 rule 1, the petition does not show any discovery of new fact or point out a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other analogous sufficient cause for review in the Commission's Order No.009 dt.12.03.97. On the contrary, the petition has brought out the same facts on system losses and cost of power which were placed before the Commission in their tariff filing and during the hearing. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Petition has merely expressed their reservation to the decision taken by the Commission without bringing out any discovery of fact or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient analogous cause for review as provided in Order 47 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Commission has made an appraisal of facts and fixed parameters for reduction of system loss leading to reduction in volume of purchase of power, cost of power and issue of clear profit remaining within the hounds of Section 26 of the OER Act while delivering its order. No fresh facts have come to light, nor any mistake has been pointed out by the petitioner.
12. The Petitioner represented by Sri B.C. Jena, Director Transmission and Distribution and Sri B.P. Rekhani, S.E. (Commerce) admitted during the hearing on 24.04.97 that no new facts have been discovered during the period from the issue of the Commission's order on tariff', till the date of filing this petition, nor have GRIDCO identified any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other analogous sufficient cause for review in the order.
13. Referring to paragraph 6 of the petition, we have to observe that Commission has no role now to play as the petitioner has expressed its intention to come up with the proposal of subsidy to be received from Government for the approval of the Commission. The issue is open and Commission would apply itself to the issue when a specific proposal in the matter is received from GRIDCO.
14. In view of above, we hold that the issues raised in the petition do not comply with any of the conditions envisaged under Order 47 Rule l of Civil Procedure Code and hence there is no case for review. It is, therefore, ordered that the petition for review is rejected.
Pronounced this day the 29th April, 1997 in presence of the petitioner.
Case No. 9 of 1997
TR-008- 1 997
Order No. 001 dated 22nd April, 1997
22.04.97 The petition filed by M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) seeking review on Commission's Order No. 009 dated 12th March, 1997 passed in the Case No. 4 of 1997 was taken up today. M/s. Gridco represented by Sri B.C. Jena, Director (Transmission & Distribution) and Sri B.P. Rekhani, S.E. (Commerce).
Heard the representative of Gridco. Commission wanted to get clarification from the petitioner if any of the facts and figures presented by them have been ignored in Commission's order or any fresh facts has come into light or any mistake observed in the Commission's order. It was clarified by the petitioner that no fresh fact has come up nor they have found any error apparent in the order.
Hearing in the matter is concluded and it is reserved for orders on 29th April, 1997
Order No. 002 dated 29th April, 1997
29.04.97 Representative of Gridco Sri L.K. Mishra, Chief Engineer (Commerce) and Sri R. K. Mohanty, Executive Engineer (Commerce) are present. Order delivered in separate sheets. The petition for review is rejected. Copies of the order be sent to the petitioner.