ORDER Since common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned counsel, petitions are clubbed together, heard finally and disposed of by this order. 2. The common grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity directed the filing of an application to condone the delay in filing the review petition, in view of Rule 13 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007, for short ‘Rules’ enabling enlargement of time beyond 30 days prescribed under procedural directions dated 14.9.2012 issued by the Hon’ble Chairperson on filing a review petition under Section 120(2)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence these petitions for the following common reliefs: W.P.No..27999/14c/wW.P.No.28217/13 a. “Quash notification dated 24.02.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent as being ultra vires the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 bearing No.Reference–APTEL/Registry/ Procedure2012; b. Quash notification dated 14.09.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent as being ultra vires the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 bearing No.Reference – APTEL/Registry/Procedure2012; c. Declare that the action of the Respondent in prescribing a period of limitation for filing of Review under Section 120(2)(f) of the Electricity Act 2003 is illegal and opposed to the scheme of the Electricity Act 2003; d. Grant cost of proceedings; e. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The procedure and power of the Appellate Tribunal to review its decision is under subsection (1) of Section 120 and clause (f) and (i) of Subsection (2) of Section 120 of the Electricity Act which run thus: “120. Procedure and powers of Appellate Tribunal. – (1) The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. 2. – (1) The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. 2. The Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) xxxxxx (d) xxxxxx (e) xxxxxx (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) xxxxxx (h) xxxxxx (i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 4. The Central Government in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 176 and in particular clause (t) of Subsection (2), amongst others, in the matter of Appellate Tribunal’s exercise of powers of a Civil Court under Clause (i) of Subsection (2) of Section 120, framed the Rules and in particular Rule 13 reads thus: “13. Power to extend time.– the Tribunal may extend the time appointed by these rules or fixed by any order, for doing any act or taking any proceeding, upon such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, and any enlargement may be ordered, although the application therefore is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed.” 5. Though the Rules do not provided for appointment of time to file a review petition nevertheless Rule 107 invests in the Chairperson, wherever the Rules are silent or no provision is made, to issue appropriate directions to remove difficulties and issue such orders or circulars to govern the situation or contingency that may arise in the working of the Tribunal. It is in exercise of this jurisdiction that the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal by notification dated 14.9.2012 in APTL/Registry/Procedure/2012 issued procedural directions, whereunder, clause (13) and (14) relating to review reads thus: “ E. REVIEW 13. Review to be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment/order. The earlier Notification No.APTEL/Registry/ Procedure/2012 dated 24.2.2012 is reiterated. 14. Once an application for Review of any judgment/order has been made and disposed of, no further Application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.” 6. Review to be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment/order. The earlier Notification No.APTEL/Registry/ Procedure/2012 dated 24.2.2012 is reiterated. 14. Once an application for Review of any judgment/order has been made and disposed of, no further Application for review shall be entertained in the same matter.” 6. Regard being had to the aforesaid statutory provisions, undoubtedly, clause (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 120 clearly sets out the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review its decisions, though does not prescribe a period of limitation within which the application for review of its decision is to be preferred. Subsection (1) of Section 120 states that the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and other provisions of the Act and the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. However subsection (2) invests the Appellate Tribunal with the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit amongst others, in respect of reviewing its decision. Yet again, clause (i) of Subsection (2) of Section 120 states that the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers in respect of other matters which may be prescribed by the Central Government. 7. The object of clause (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 120 of the Act, it appears. is to provide an effective judicial forum to redress the grievance of the litigants who appear before it. The power of review conferred on the Tribunal, undoubtedly is of the same character as that of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which includes enlargement of time, in cases where the application for review is filed beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under Article 124 of the schedule to the Limitation Act 1963, if however sufficient cause is shown for not having made an application within 30 days. 8. The Central Government exercising a jurisdiction under Section 176(2)(t) over additional matters in respect of which the Appellate Tribunal may exercise powers of a Civil Court for purposes of clause (i) of subsection (2) of Section 120 framed the ‘Rules’, without, however providing a period of limitation to entertain a review petition. 8. The Central Government exercising a jurisdiction under Section 176(2)(t) over additional matters in respect of which the Appellate Tribunal may exercise powers of a Civil Court for purposes of clause (i) of subsection (2) of Section 120 framed the ‘Rules’, without, however providing a period of limitation to entertain a review petition. Rule 13, invests in the Tribunal the power to enlarge time appointed under the Rules or fixed by any order as the justice of the case may require, though the application is not made until after the expiry of the time appointed or allowed. The words ‘Any Order’ referred to under Rule 13 is said to be procedural directions dated 14.9.2012 issued by the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Tribunal prescribing 30 days time for filing a review petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 107 of the ‘Rules’. The prescription of 30 days time for filing a review petition is not inflexible in view of Rule 13 providing for enlargement of time as the justice of the case may require. 9. A bare perusal of Rule 13 of the Rules framed by the Central Government is in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act and enable the prescription of a period of limitation to file a review petition, coupled with the Appellate Tribunal’s discretion to condone the delay in preferring a review petition beyond the period of 30 days. 10. It is well settled law that Rules made by subordinate legislation are to be regarded as part and parcel of the enactment for certain purposes, on ascertaining the objects and scope of the Act, since framed subsequent to the enactment. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the power of the Central Government to frame rules, following which the ‘Rules’ are brought into existence, in the matter of procedure in filing the review petition and the exercise of power by the Hon’ble Chairperson in issuing directions, fixing the period of limitation to file a review petition, since not provided under the Act or the Rules, it cannot but be said that the directions dated 14.9.2012 are with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act. 11. 11. Viewed in the aforesaid light, the period of 30 days fixed in the notification dated 14.9.2012 issued by the Hon’ble Chairperson exercising jurisdiction under Rule 107 of the Rules, for filing a review petition, when read with Rule 13 of the Rules entitles the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in the matter of enlarging of time if the review petition is filed beyond the period of 30 days, and the justice of the case may require. 12. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in calling upon the petitioners to file applications for enlargement of time in filing review petitions beyond 30 days, by exercising a jurisdiction vested under Rule 13 of the ‘Rules’. Petitions are ordered accordingly.