M/S BADRI KEDAR PAPER PVT. LTD. versus U.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMN. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1555 · Decided: 19-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--\ 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1555 
M/S BADRI KEDAR PAPER PVT. LTD. 
v. 
U.P. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMN. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7433 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 19, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act,_ 1999 - s.24 -
Electricity tariff- Determination/modification of- Held: In view 
A 
B 
of provisions of the Act as also regulations framed thereunder, 
C 
U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission alone has exclusive 
jurisdiction to determine tariff - Even for modification and/or 
alteration of tariff, the Commission must be approached -
Tariff in terms of s.24(6) to be modified by licensee albeit in 
terms of direction issued by Commission, wheretobefore all D 
procedures laid down in that behalf in terms of the regulations 
are required to be complied with. 
Doctrines -
Doctrine of promissory estoppel -
1 
Applicability of- In matter of implementation of electricity tariff. 
Validity of the action of withdrawal of a circular letter 
E 
issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (respondent 
No.2) was the subject matter of the writ petitions filed 
before the High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed. 
The writ petitioners filed appeals before this Court. 
Earlier in LML Ltd. case, this Court had allowed 
appeals against the Corporation. It is the contention of 
the Corporation that the decision in LML case required 
re-consideration. 
Allowing the appeal with directions, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In LML Ltd. case, this Court proceeded on 
the basis that it was the U.P. Electricity Regulatory 
Commission alone who had the exclusive jurisdiction to 
determine the tariff. In view of the provisions of the Uttar 
1555 
G 
H 
1556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 as also the 
regulations framed thereunder, as the law stands now, 
there cannot be any doubt or dispute tha_t the 
,J-L 
Commission alone has the exclusive jurisdiction and 
even for the purpose of modification and/ or alteration of 
B tariff, the Commission must be approached. The 
submission on behalf of the respondent that in that 
judgment, this Court had held that sub-section (6) of s.24 
of the 1999 Act empowers the holders of the licence to 
.. 
modify the tariff, is incorrect. The tariff in terms of Sub-
c section (6) of s.24 has to be modified by the licensee 
~ 
albeit in terms of a direction issued by the Commission, 
wheretobefore all procedures laid down in that behalf in 
terms of the regulations are required to be complied with. 
-; 
There cannot further be any doubt or dispute that the 
D Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine 
the tariff. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [1564-C-G] 
1.2. This Court in LML Ltd. however, proceeded to hold 
in favour of the consumers of electrical energy on the 
premise that the Corporation was bound by the doctrine 
E of promissory estoppel. The matter as regards fulfillment 
of the conditions of licence granted by the Commission 
in favour of the licensee is a matter between the parties 
thereto. If the Corporation fails to comply with any of the 
conditions laid down in the licence or violates the tariff, 
F the licence of the licensee may be revoked. A penal action 
may also be taken. But the same would not mean that the 
licensee can be permitted to take advantage of its own 
J 
wrong. It can approbate and reprobate, particularly when 
it is the beneficiary thereof. It is furthermore well known 
G that even a right under a mandatory provision can be 
waived. If it had made a representation pursuant whereto 
or in furtherance whereof a consumer of electrical energy 
had altered its position, the doctrine of promissory 
estoppel shall apply. The doctrine of promissory estoppel 
( 
H 
applies also in the realm of a statute. It is not the 
,, 
M/S SADRI KEDAR PAPER PVT. LTD. v. U.P. 
1557 
ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMN. & ORS. 
contention of respondent that in the matter of A 
'-4 
implementation of tariff the doctrine of promissory 
estoppel will have no application. If it applies, correctness 
of LML Ltd. cannot be questioned and therefore, LML Ltd 
does not require reconsideration. This appeal shall also 
be governed by the aforementioned judgment. [Paras 15, B 
16 and 18] (1564-G-H; 1565-A-F; 1566-B-C] 
BSES Ltd. v. Tata Power Co. Ltd. and Others ((2004) 1 
SCC 195]; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission 
~ 
v. CESC Ltd. [(2002) 8 SCC 715]; Association of Industrial 
Electricity Users v. State of A.P. and Others [(2002) 3

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