1 | P a g e
BEFORE THE HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT PANCHKULA
Case No. HERC/RA 10 of 2018
Date of Order : 10.01.2019
In the Matter of
Review Petition under section 94(1)(f) of the electricity Act, 2003 for review of the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commission.
Petitioner
Ravinder Singh and Others
Quorum Shri Jagjeet Singh, Chairman Shri Parvindra Singh Chauhan, Member
ORDER
1. The aforesaid petition has been filed by the petitioners i.e. Ravinder Singh, Yadvinder Singh, Umed Singh and Ankur Kumar are public spirited persons of the general public seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Commission directing release of the said benefits in favour of the Electricity Ombudsman. It has been claimed that the order dated 22.3.2018 violates the provisions of the Electricity Act,2003; Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Fund Rules,2014; and also the provisions of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and conditions of Service of the Electricity Ombudsman and the Officers and the staff of the office of Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations,2004. It has been claimed that the directions given by virtue of the aforesaid order/decision dated 22.3.2018 violates the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations (supra) causing loss to the public exchequer in order to bestow benefit upon the Electricity Ombudsman. The petitioners in the aforesaid review petition claimed that the notified Rules and Regulations cannot be superseded by a decision and any financial benefit in derogation of the notified Rules/Regulations cannot be released till such time the Regulations are amended. As the Commission had no where amended the Regulations, hence,
2 | P a g e
direction to release the said benefits is in conflict with the statutory Rules as well as Regulations. Hence, a prayer was made to review the order dated 22.3.2018 (Execution whereof has been sought in PRO No.28 of 2018 by Sh.
R.C.Mahajan).
2. The petitioners have sought condonation of delay and also for exemption in filing fee in view of public interest involved.
3. The Commission observes that the issues raised by the petitioners are the same as have been raised by the same petitioners in PRO 34 of 2018; the prayer in the instant petition being for review of order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commission by majority. As the Commission, vide its order dated 10.01.2019 in PRO 28 of 2018 and PRO 34 of 2018 has already re-examined and reviewed the directions issued vide the impugned order dated 22.03.2018, the present petition has become infructous and is accordingly dismissed.
4. So far as the issues pertaining to the dispute involving Sh.P.C.Sharma are concerned, the Commission has been apprised of a separate petition having been filed in the aforesaid dispute. It would thus be expedient and necessary not to deal with such issues in the present petition and to instead separately decide the same in the independent petition relating to the said cause of action.
5. The same shall be decided after issuing notice to the concerned parties.
This disposes of the review petition no RA-10 of 2018.
Date : 10.01.2019 Parvindra Singh Chauhan Jagjeet Singh
Place: Panchkula Member Chairman
