LexCENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 821 CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION II. GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2007) APRIL 9, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Electricity Act, 2003: Power of Tribunal to determine tariff A 8 for trading - Scope - Held: Respondent neither initiated any C proceeding before the concerned Regulatory Commission nor made any grievance relating to excessive exercise or non- ex ercise of jurisdiction by Regulatory Commission - Bare reading of ss.121 and 142 shows that those provisions were not applicable - Order of tribunal directing Regulatory D Commissions to fix trading margins cannot be maintained. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Gajendra Haldia and Ors. (2008) 11 SCALE 313, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2008) 11 SCALE 313 relied on Para 2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2006 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Petition No. 1/2005 and I.A. Nos.1 & 32 of 2006. E F V.R. Reddy, U.U. Lalit Shanti Bhushan, M.G. G Ramachandran, R. Chandrachud, R. Joseph, H.K. Puri, P. Narasimhan, Sridhar Potaraju, R. Joseph, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, Avinash Menon, Vishal Gupta Kumar Mihir (M/s. for Khaitan & Co.), Manish Singhvi, D.K. 821 H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A Sinha, Sandeep Bajaj, Hemantika Wahi, Mamta Tushit, Somnath Padhan, H. Wahi, Fox Mandal & Co. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AK. Ganeshan, S. Shashtri, K.V. Mohan, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Pratik Dham, C.K. Rai, D. Julis Regmej, Sridhar Potarju, Raj Kumar Mehta, U. Sharma, Nikhil Nayyar, TVS 8 Raghvendra Sreyas, Ambuj Agrawal, Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Amit Kapur, Poonam Verma, Anupam Verma, A. Guneshwar Sharma Shrestha Verma, Vibha Datta Makhija, Nidhi Minocha, Ruchi G. Narula, Vivek Kishore, Rakesh K. Sharma, Pradeep Misra, Amit Kumar, P. Nedumaran, Shibashish Misra, Ashiesh c Kumar, A.S. Bhasme, Sharmila Upadhyay, G. Umapathy, Vibha Tiwari, Rakesh K. Sharma, Richa Srivastava (for Gopal Jain) and lndu Sharma for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is E to the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as to the 'Tribunal'). The appeal has been filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the 'Act'). 2. The primary stand of the appellant is that though the Tribunal accepted that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (in short the 'Regulatory Commission') did not have any power to determine tariff for trading, it invoked Sections 60 and 66 of the Act to direct all Regulatory Commissions to fix trading F margins as if it involved tariff determination. Stand of the appellant is that only appropriate Regulatory Commission can invoke provisions of Section 60 upon arriving at a finding that a particular licensee or generator had conducted himself in the specified manner which has an adverse effect on competition G ·in the electricity industry. According to the appellant the Tribunal issued directions on assumptions and presumptions without any adjudication on tests laid down in Section 60 of the Act. In essence, the stand is that the Tribunal is not empowered to determine tariff in exercise of its revisional supervisory powers H CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION v. 823 _) GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] under Section 121 of the Act. It was pointed out that the A exercise of power under Section 121 of the Act was not permissible because respondent No.1-Gajendra Haldea had neither initiated any proceedings before the concerned Regulatory Commission and had also not made any grievance relating to excessive exercise or non exercise of jurisdiction by B such Regulatory Commission. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Gajendra Ha/dea and Ors. (2008 (11) SCALE 313) holding that respondent-Gajendra Haldea cannot be treated as a person aggrieved under the Act. c 3. Respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the judgment and submitted that Grid Corporation's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. ) 4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions Section 111 D needs to be noted. The same reads as follows: "111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by an adj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.