LexHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 915 HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER v. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2009 ) OCTOBER 03, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998: s. 27 - Appeal under - Maintainability of - After repeal of the 1998 Act and enactment of Electricity Act, 2003- Held: Maintainable, since the legislature never intended to take away the vested right of appeal in the forum under the 1998 Act, A B c as the 2003 Act did not provide for transfer of pending cases 0 - Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 111. s. 22 - Determination of Tariff under - By regulatory , Commission - Also issued certain directions as part of the taiiff order - The Commission imposed fine on Electricity Board for non-compliance of the directions - Propriety of - E Held: The Commission was competent to issue the directions as all the directions were connected with the tariff fixation - However, it was not correct for the Commission to impose penalty on the Board, as the Board had substantially complied with the directions. F Prospective Operation - Enactments dealing with vested rights are primarily prospective, unless expressly or by necessary intention or implication given effect retrospectively - A right to appeal as well as forum is a vested right. G Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, in exercise of its powers u/ss. 22 915 H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A and 29 of the 1998 Act, determined the tariff applicable for electricity in the State and also issued certain direction.s as a part of the tariff order. In view of the complaints, the Commission issued . 8 notice to the respondent-Board for non-compliance of the directions issued by the Commission. Respondent- Board, in its reply, questioned the jurisdiction and competence of the Commission to issue those directions. The Commission held the respondent-Board guilty of C non-compliance of the directions and imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the Board. The respondent-Board, challenging the order of the Commission, filed appeal before High Court u/s. 27 of the 1998 Act. In the meantime 1998 Act was repealed and D Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted. Pursuant thereto, the Commission took preliminary objection as to maintainability of the appeal by the High Court and contended that in view of s. 111 of the 2003 Act the appeal would lie to the Appellate Tribunal established E under 2003 Act. High Court held that the appeal was maintainable because the· 2003 Act would have prospective operation. While deciding the appeal on merit, set aside the order passed by the Commission. Hence the present appeals. F Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is a well settled proposition of law that enactments dealing with substantive rights are primarily prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary G intention or implication given effect retrospectively. The aforesaid principle has full play when vested rights are affected. In the absence of any unequivocal expose, the piece of Legislation must exposit adequate intendment of Legislature to make the provision retrospective. A right H of appeal as well as forum is a vested right unless the H.P. STATE ELECT. REGULATORY COMM. v. H.P. 917 STATE ELECT. BOARD said right is taken away by the Legislature by an express A provi$ion in the Statute by necessary intention. [Para 25] [937-H; 938-A·B] 1.2. It is the admitted position that Legislature by expressed stipulation in the new legislation has not 8 provided for transfer of the pending cases as was done by the Parliament in respect of service matters and suits by financial institutions/banks by enactment of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. No doubt C right to appeal can b~ divested but this requires either a direct legislative mandate or sufficient proof or reason to show and hold that the said right to appeal stands withdrawn and the pending proceedings stand transferred to different or new appellate forum. Creation of a different or a new appellate forum by itself is not D sufficient to accept the argument/contention of an implied transfer. Something more substantial or affirmative is required which is not perceptible from the scheme of the 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.