The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings in the Madras High Court against the legality of the appointment of the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC). It issued notice on a plea by the Tamil Nadu government for transfer of the cases to the Supreme Court.
A Bench, led by Justice Anil R. Dave, stayed the proceedings in two writ petitions before the High Court filed by advocate R. Muthukumaraswamy and M.G. Rasool against the appointment of S. Akshaya Kumar as Chairman more than two years after the post fell vacant in 2012.
In its petition seeking transfer of the two petitions, the State government submitted that the absence of a chairman had affected consumers most and caused a “huge backlog.”
The selection committee for the appointment of the chairman and for suggesting a panel of names to fill the vacancies on the Commission was re-constituted after the High Court gave the green signal in February. The government appointed Mr. Kumar on the recommendations of the selection committee, led by Justice Mr. R. Raghupathy, a retired judge of the High Court. An order was issued by the Energy Department on June 6.
The government said the appointment complied with the High Court’s orders and with Sections 84 and 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
‘Shift the pleas to SC’
Special Correspondent reports:
The Tamil Nadu government has filed applications for the transfer to the Supreme Court from the Madras High Court of two petitions relating to the appointment of the Chairman and Member of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC).
The government also prayed for shifting of another petition to prohibit the TNERC from proceeding with the tariff revision (since implemented) without following the mandatory provisions.
When the three petitions came up on Tuesday, the First Bench, of Chief Justice S.K.Kaul and Justice M.Sathyanarayanan, said the government had already filed petitions for the transfer of the two petitions pertaining to the appointment of Chairman S. Akshayakumar and Member G. Rajagopal. The Supreme Court had issued notice and was said to have stayed the proceedings.
Counsel said it proposed to seek the transfer the other petition, too. When senior counsel arguing the case for restraining the TNERC from proceeding with the tariff revision said the High Court should pass interim orders, the Bench said propriety would demand it to defer consideration in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the two other connected matters.
