LexGRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. versus GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 79
}
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA L TO.
A
II.
GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5722 of 2006 etc.)
AUGUST 13, 2008
8
·~
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
'
Electricity Act, 2003- ss. 52 rlw s. 79(1)(g), 111, 121 and
I
142- Sale of surplus power by Grid Corporation of Orissa
(GRIDCO)- To other trader- Petition before Central Electric- c
ity Regulatory Commission (CERC) seeking direction to
GRIDCO to adhere to trading margin as specified. by CERC
in its Notification- CERC holding that the petitioner had no
Lpcus Standi and that the Notification was not applicable to
GRIDCO being intra-State trader - Appellat.e Tribunal held 0
that sale to Power Trading Corporation(PTC) was an inter-State
trade attracting. Regulation 2 of Fixation of Trading Margins
Reg·ulations, 2006 and as such PTC could not sell the pur-
chased power within the State - On appeal, held: The petition
before CERC was not entertainable, the petitioner lacking E
Locus Standi - The transaction was intra-State - In view of r. 9
of Electricity Rules, PTC was not barred from selling the pur-
chased power within the State- PTC is bound by the Regula-
tions - Central Electricity Rules, 2005 - r. 9 - Central Elec-
tricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin)
Regulations, 2006 - Regulation 2 - Central Electricity Regu-
F
latory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for
Grant of Licence and other Related Matters) Regulations,
2004.
Respondent No. 1 filed a petition before Central Elec-
G
.
tricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) u/s 52 r/w s. 79 (1)
~
(g) of Electricity Act, 2003. He sought direction to the ap-
pellant-GRIDCO to adhere to maximum trading margin,
as specified by the Commission by its Notification dated
79
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008J 12 S.C.R
A 23.1.2006. CERC dismissed the petition holding that
GRIDCO being an intra-State trader, the Notification was
not applicable to it. Respondent's. appeal· u/s 111 of the
Act was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal holding tha.t ·
. tQe transaction of sale of surplus energy by GRIDCO to
s Power Trading Corporation (PTC) was in the nature of
inter-State trade attracting Regulation 2 of Central Elec-
tri~ity ~egulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Mar-
gin) Regulations, 2006; and that PTC being an inter-Sta~e
trader could not sell in Orissa the electricity _purchased
c from GRIDCO.
·
~-
. · Disposing of the appeals and the SLP, the Court
' .... ...... - ~
.
HELD: 1. Appellate Tribunal was wrong in interfer-
ing with th~ conclusions of CERC that the writ petition of
D respondent No.1 was not entertainable and/or maintain-
able: Responden·t No. 1, in order to prove that he had Lo-
cus Standi to file the petition, relied on Sections 121 and
142 of Electricity Act, 2003. A bare reading of these provi-
..
·sions shows that they are not applicable. It was ~lso stated
that the petition is not in the nature of PIL and that· the ·
E prayer fo.r. refund was not being pressed. [Paras ·15, 16
and 17l [89,~; 88 F-G]
2.1 The observation of the Appellate Tribunal that
PTC could not have sold electricity and it could not have
F effected sale inside the State is wrong because of Rule 9
of the Central Rules. The contract was concluded in the ·
State of Orissa and the trc;tnsmission loss was to be borne
by PTC who was not an agent of GRIDCO. The Appellate
Tribunal's co·nclusions regarding nature of tr~nsactions
G are. not supportable when various clauses of ·the agree-
. ment are considered. They clearly establish intra-State
nature of the transactions. [Paras 19 a·nd ·20] [93,D-E; 93,A]
2.2 Under Rule 9 of the Central Electricity Rules, 2005
there is no restriction~ on the licensee effecting sale or re-
H sale in the same State and no separate licence is needed.
{
. ) -
~
-
f
~
;.
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. v. GAJENDRA 81
HALDEA & ORS.
In fact, there was no agreement to take out the electricity, A
as was inferred by the Appellate Tribunal. PTC is bound
by the Regulations. Whenever there is sal~ for inter-state
trade, the margin is maintained. Additionally, PTC was not
a party before CERC. Originally also, it was not a party ·
before the Appellate Tribunal. [Para 20] [93,8-C]
B
f.
Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company, Coonoor and
Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernaku/am and Ors.
'
1964 (7) SCR 706- relied on.
·
Case Law Reference
1964 (7) SCR 706
Relied on
Para 18
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.