Consequently, the judge discharged an injunction granted by another Court which restrained GPL from implementing the hikes and ordered Ramon Gaskin, who lost the fight to stop the increases, to pay the defendant company $75,000 costs.

Justice Singh held that Gaskin, whose quest was for prerogative relief to prevent the proposed tariffs rise and secured a nisi order, from the other judge, restraining GPL from charging more retroactive to February 1, had acted wrongly and without authority.

Gaskin as well as GPL Chief Executive Officer John Lynn and Finance Director Phillip Jacques were present when the decision was announced.

GPL, represented by Senior Counsel Rex Mc Kay and Miles Fitzpatrick had challenged the legality of the interim edict made at the request of other attorney-at-law Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, for Gaskin.

Delivering his judgement, Justice Singh said he found that, at all material times, GPL was within its rights.

Saying he was bound by a Court of Appeal decision in a 2001 case involving Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T) and Caribbean Telecommunications Limited (CCL), the judge said, last January 31, GPL was a private company and not subject to judicial review.

Referring to his advice. which Ramjattan rejected, that it was better to withdraw the application to file a supplementary affidavit in view of the prevailing circumstances, Justice Singh said he was constrained by the situation that prevailed at January 31, because it was on those facts the other judge acted.

At that time, GPL was being run almost exclusively by A.C. Power and its advisers and Parliament, by the Electricity Sector Reform Act (ESRA) of 1999, virtually provided A.C. Power all rights to manage and make policy decisions, Justice Singh said.

The judge said the ESRA provides remedies for dissatisfied parties, including consumers.

Therefore, there was no necessity for Gaskin to approach the High Court by way of prerogative writs. Even if he had the right to do so, he showed, in his affidavits and arguments, no compelling reasons for a breach of the rules of natural justice on which his writs could succeed, Justice Singh said.

The judge reiterated that GPL, at all times, acted within the ambits of the statutes and its licences to raise rates and tariffs.

Justice Singh said it was not enough for Gaskin to cite performance targets which were not reached, alleged exorbitant management fees which were known for the first time before he filed his action and the failure of GPL to implement promises of improvement.

“There must be some other Act which was in breach of the rules of natural justice or patently unfair for judicial review to apply,” the judge said, at the dismissal of the case.

Justice Dawn Gregory-Barnes had previously issued the nisi order to Gaskin, who applied for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, directing GPL to show cause why the January 29 announced charges should not be quashed.