Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SHIGA ENERGY PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepank Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Advocate with Mr.Tushar Mathur, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (PGCIL)
Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate for R-3.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 08.02.2021 whereby the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has dismissed the application of the petitioner, seeking to place the petition for hearing before a bench 2021:DHC:1656 not comprising of Mr. I.S. Jha, member of the Commission and has been pleased to adjourn the proceedings sine-die.
3. Subject application was filed on the ground of apprehension of bias as Mr. I.S. Jha was earlier the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., one of the respondents in the petition filed by the petitioner before the Commission and had dealt with the said issue and had even corresponded with the petitioner on behalf of M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. in his capacity as Chairman-Cum-Managing Director.
4. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. that at time when the subject impugned order was passed there were only three members in the Commission and that now there are five members in the Commission.
5. Without, in any manner accepting the plea of alleged bias or casting any aspersion on the independence and conduct of Mr. I.S. Jha, I am of the view that as Mr. I.S. Jha was the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and had specifically dealt with the subject issue and corresponded with the petitioner on behalf of M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., judicial proprietary demanded that the Commission should have placed the matter before a different bench of which Mr. I.S. Jha was not a member.
6. Since it is stated that at the time when the subject impugned order was passed, there were only three members in the Commission and now the strength of the Commission has increased, it would be appropriate if the order adjourning the petition filed by the petitioner sine-die is set aside and the petition is placed before a bench of the Commission of which Mr. I.S. Jha is not a member.
7. Accordingly, order dated 08.02.2021 is set aside. Order adjourning the petition sine-die is recalled and it is directed that the petition be placed before a bench of which Mr. I.S. Jha is not a member.
8. It is once again clarified that this order is passed without,in any manner,accepting the allegation of bias or casting any aspersion on the impendence or conduct of Mr. I.S. Jha.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. The Commission shall endeavour to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 20, 2021/‘rs’