Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus L.I. PARIJA AND ORS.

Decided
16 January 2006
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2006] 1 S.C.R. 420 · 2006 INSC 26
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

p. 421, margin C

The appeals were essentially directed against the interim orders passed by the Orissa High Court directing, in offence, restraining the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'the Commission') - appellant herein from taking steps in the matter of fixation of tariff for the periods 2002-03 and 2003-04. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us an order dated 02.09.2003 in Misc. Case Nos. 1380 and 1805 of 2003 by which the earlier orders were modified and the Commission was permitted to decide on the question of fixation of tariff for the aforesaid two periods. The writ petitioners before the High Court, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 13 in these appeals have not appeared inspite of service of notice. From the order dated 02.09.2003, it is clear that the High Court virtually recalled the order of restraint on the exercise of power of the Commission. But at the same time, the High Court has kept the matters pending for the purpose of monitoring the action of the Commission. We find these prders to be rather strange. The interim orders passed by the High Court restraining the Commission from exercising its functions are indefensible. After the High Court had permitted the Commission to take necessary decision, the Commission has. in fact. taken decision and has fixed the tariff for the two periods. It is also not disputed that levy is being made on the ba~is of tariff so fixed. It is not in dispute that correctness of the tariff fixed can be questioned before the prescribed forum. as provided in the Orissa Electricity Reform. Act. 1994. That being so. there was no necessity for the High Court to keep the writ petitions pending. As the Commission has already taken decisions, the tariffs have been fixed and levys are being made, nothing further needs to be done in these appeals except directing the Petition as having become infructuous. The appeals of. In view of this order, the notice of contempt the contempt proceedings stand quashed. R.P.

pp. 421–422, margin C