Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Petn.No.68/2002does not state that the policy has to be applied with retrospective effect.Regarding the Supreme Court judgment referred to by the Learned Advocate ShriRakesh Gupta, he submitted that it is a matter of interpretation and the court maydepart from the plain reading. In the present case, clause 10 requires to beconsidered for interpretation.[13] Thereafter, the petition was kept for hearing on 10.8.2006. On that day, LearnedAdvocate Shri Abhishek Mehta for Trivedi & Gupta was present on behalf of thepetitioner. Learned Advocate Shri S.J.Nayak for Advocate Shri N.K.Majmudarwas present on behalf of GUVNL. Nobody remained present for DGVCL &Government of Gujarat.13.1 The Commission had received a fax from GUVNL for adjourning the hearing ofthe above petition, since the concerned officers had to attend meeting of UltraMega Power Project at New Delhi and hearing at the Appellate Tribunal forElectricity on 10.8.2006 at New Delhi. We found that full opportunity of beingheard should be given to the parties. Hence, we granted adjournment in theinterest of justice.13.2 The Government had not filed affidavit regarding details of CPP Policy. Hence,we directed the Government of Gujarat to file affidavit regarding details of CPPPolicy on or before 22.8.2006 by furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner aswell as GUVNL and DGVCL.[14] Thereafter, the petition was kept for hearing on 22.8.2006. On that day, LearnedAdvocate Shri Abhishek Mehta for Trivedi & Gupta was present on behalf of thepetitioner. Learned Advocate S/Shri N.K.Majmudar and S.J.Nayak were presenton behalf of GUVNL along with Shri J.M.Vachhani, Ex.Engineer and ShriP.J.Jani, Dy.Engineer from GUVNL . S/Shri K.M.Patel, Dy.Engineer andPage 14 of 17