19.The aforesaid paragraphs would clearly indicate two things. The first is the knowledge of the first respondent that the order passed in the month of February, 1998 is not a law. Secondly, the issue on “admissibility of royalty as a cost item” came for scrutiny only in the case relating to CCTL, which was disposed of in March, 2002. Incidentally, the first respondent was also given the similar treatment. Therefore, all along, the first respondent has been agitating both before TAMP and the Government and before this Court that royalty as a cost item has to form part of the tariff to be fixed. Now, contrary to the said contention, reliance is made, based upon law and its change, for the first time in the year 2013 before the Arbitral Tribunal. In other words, the first respondent seeks to set aside not only the compromise memo but also the order passed in terms thereon by the Court through an indirect way and that too, when the matters are pending before the authorities apart from challenge being made to the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, it is not only a case of approbation and reprobation but of parallel remedy, if any. Perhaps, the first respondent must have been well advised to go through the alternative route by eliminating the presence of TAMP and the Government of India while binding them over through the award.
