Grsj order stayed Sekarreporter1: The single judge (Hon’ble Justice GR Swaminathan)order of Madurai HC restraining TNERC from fixation of Tariff for whole of Tamilnadu has been stayed by Division Bench of Madurai HC comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SS Sundar and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Srimathi today after hearing the arguments of P. Wilson appearing for State of Tamilnadu. Mr P. Wilson submitted that Tariff fixation is a regulatory process and SupremeCourt in 2018 has held that for activities relating to

[9/2, 08:22] Sekarreporter1: The single judge (Hon’ble Justice GR Swaminathan)order of Madurai HC restraining TNERC from fixation of Tariff for whole of Tamilnadu has been stayed by Division Bench of Madurai HC comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice SS Sundar and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Srimathi today after hearing the arguments of P. Wilson appearing for State of Tamilnadu.
Mr P. Wilson submitted that Tariff fixation is a regulatory process and SupremeCourt in 2018 has held that for activities relating to adjudication only by Electricity commissions, a member with legal background is mandatory. The two vacancies of TNERC arise in March 2022 and May 2022 for non legal and legal member and one post has been filled up in July 2022 for non legal member after selection committee’s recommendations. So far as legal member appointment is concerned it is under active consideration of government . Three writ petitions were filed by consumers challenging TANGEDCO/ TANTRANSISCO/SLDC petition seeking for fixation of tariff before TNERC before single judge . Challenging the hearing of tariff fixation proceedings, TN Spinning mills Assn and other two consumers filed writ petition and sought to restrain TNERC from hearing the petition on the ground that member legal is not filled up. Single judge restrained the TNERC from fixing tarriff without the member legal being appointed in TNERC .
Mr P. Wilson argued before Division that SupremeCourt has held that member legal is not required for tariff fixation and therefore the learned judge having held it is regulatory process ought not to have given such restraint order against TNERC . He submitted that even though it was was brought to the notice of the Single judge that the prayers are in the nature of Public interest litigation and it has to be heard by Division bench and that the TANGEDCO/TANTRANSISCO/SLDC were not made as party respondents and that WP is not maintainable, the learned single judge entertained the Writ petitions and restrained TNERC from revising Tariff.
Mr P.Wilson submitted that TANGEDCO is suffering loss of 13407 crores per annum and if tariff is not fixed there will be a further loss of 1500 crores per month. He submitted that the Union government has already given warnings to TANGEDCO to revise the tarriff and for past 8 years the tariff was not revised. He said the Union government recently banned the purchase of electricity from neighbouring states by TN and this has a serious ramifications of the situation is continued he therefore prayed for stay of single judge order.
Mr Isaac Mohanlal and Mr Sri charan argued that hearing by TNERC without a legal member is against SupremeCourt judgement rendered in 2018 . They submitted that tariff fixation also involves adjudication process and therefore a member legal should be present in the composition of TNERC. They also submitted that if any order relating to tariff is fixed by TNERC it is void and legally unsustainable.
The Division after elaborate arguments granted stay of single judge order restraining TNERC from fixing tariff and posted the writ appeal for final disposal.
[9/2, 08:22] Sekarreporter1: ..