CHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 15-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 680 
CHATIISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
V. 
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3378 of 2010) 
APRIL 15, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 2003: 
s. 125, proviso - Appeal to Supreme Court - Period of 
limitation - Application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation 
of delay of 160 days - HELD: Not maintainable - Electricity 
Act is a special legislation within the meaning of s. 29(2) of 
D Limitation Act - s. 5 of Limitation Act cannot be invoked for 
entertaining an appeal filed against decision of Tribunal 
beyond the period of 120 days as specified in s. 125 of 
Electricity Act and its proviso -
There is no provision in 
Electricity Act under which Supreme Court can entertain an 
E appeal against an order of Tribunal after more than 120 days 
- Limitation Act, 1963 - ss. 5 and 29(2). 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, form, fee 
and record of proceedings) Rules, 2007: 
F 
rr. 94(2) and 98(2) rlw s. 125 of Electricity Act - Notice of 
pronouncement of order of Tribunal and 'communication' 
thereof- HELD: In view of r. 94(2), the date of pronouncement 
as notified in the cause list shall be a valid notice of 
pronouncement of the order - Once order is pronounced after 
G being shown in cause list with title of the case and name of 
the counsel, the same will be deemed to have been 
communicated to the parties - Rule 98(2) read in conjunction 
with s. 125, makes it clear that once the factum of 
pronouncement of the order of the Tribunal is made known 
H 
680 
CHATIISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. C.E.R.C. 681 
& ORS. 
to the parties and they are given opportunity to obtain a copy A 
thereof, the order will.be deemed to have been communicated 
to the parties and the period of 60 days specified in the main 
part of s. 125 will commence from that date - Electricity Act, 
2003 - s.125 -
Interpretation of Statutes -
Contextual 
interpretation. 
B 
Words and Phrases: 
'Communication' as occurring in r. 98(2) of Appellate 
Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of 
Proceedings) Rules, 2007 - Connotation of 
C 
The appellant-Chattisgarh State Electricity Board filed 
the instant appeal on 24.12.2007 challenging the order of 
the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity passed on 17.5.2007. 
Along with the appeal, the appellant filed an application o 
for condonation of 160 days' delay. It was stated in the 
application that the appellant came to know about the 
order in July, 2007; that the letter dated 7.6.2007 signed 
by the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal on 11.6.2007 
informing the appellant that the matter was disposed of E 
on 14.5.2007 could not be treated as communication in 
accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVI 
F 
of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, 
Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007. 
Respondent No. 3, the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity 
Board resisted the application contending that even 
according to appellant's assertion that it came to know 
about the order in July 2007, in the absence of any 
explanation by the appellant for remaining silent from 
July 2007 to December, 2007, the appeal could not be 
G 
entertained. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
·were: (i) "Whether s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be 
invoked by the Supreme Court for allowing the aggrieved 
person to file an appeal uls 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 
H 
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A after more than 120 days from the date of communication 
of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal for 
Electricity?" and (ii) "What is the date of communication 
of the decision or order of the Tribunal for the purpose 
B 
of s.125 of the Electricity Act?" 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Electricity Act, 2003 is a self-
contained comprehensive legislation, which not only 
regulates generation, transmission and distribution of 
C electricity but also ensures creation of special 
adjudicatory mechanism for expeditious adjudication of 
disputes emanating from operation and implementation 
of the provisions of the Act. The Act excludes the 
jurisdiction of civil courts qua an order made by the 
D adjudicating officer. Section 111 provides for an appeal 
against the order of the adjudicating officer or 
appropriate commission to the Appellate Tribunal within 
the period prescribed therein. Section 125 lays down that 
any pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.