LexM/S. DSR STEEL (P) LTD. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 583 MIS. DSR STEEL (P) LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3814 of 2007 etc.) MAY 1, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 125 - Appeal under - Maintainability of - Held: Appeal uls. 125 is maintainable only A B on the grounds specified uls. 100 CPC - It is maintainable C only when the case involves substantial question of law - Concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below cannot be reopened in appeal u/s. 125 - On facts, no substantial question of law arose for consideration - No perversity is found in the findings by courts below - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 D - s. 100. Limitation - Reckoning of /imitation - Original order and the order dismissing the review petition - Whether the two orders merged and whether limitation to be reckoned from the E date of judgment/order in review petition and not original order - Held: Where review petition is dismissed, there is no question of merger - Limitation would be reckoned from the date of the original order - Doctrine of merger. Distribution Companies filed applications before F State Electricity Regulatory Commission for revision of tariff to be effective from 1.12.2004. The Commission directed that the revised tariff determined by it would become effective from 1.1.2005 and shall remain in force till the same is amended by the Commission by a G separate order. Appellants and other consumers filed review petitions seeking review of the order of the Commission and asking for continuation of the incentive scheme. They took the plea that withdrawal of the 583 H 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A scheme offended the1 principle of promissory estoppal. The Commission dismissed the review petitions holding that the incentive scheme had a limited validity i.e. till 31.3.2003 or till the C1ommission issued a tariff order, and thus its withdrawal did not offend the principles of B promissory estoppal. The appeal against the order was dismissed by the appellate tribunal for electricity. Hence the instant appeals were filed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court C HELD: 1.1 The appeals are liable to be dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. An appeal u/s. 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before the Supreme Court only on the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC. Section 100 D c:P.C. in turn permits filing of an appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law. Findings of fact re.corded by the courts below, which would in the present case, imply the Regulatory Commission as the court of first instance and the Appellate Tribunal as the court E hearing the first appeal, cannot be re-opened before Supreme Court in an appeal u/s. 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Just as the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a second appeal u/s. 100 CPC so also Supreme Court F would be loathed to entertain any challenge to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal. [Para 7] [592-D- G] Govindaraju v. Mariamman AIR 2005 SC 1008: 2005 (1) G SCR1100; Hari Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal AIR 1999 SC 3325:1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 216;Ramaswamy Ka/ingaryar v. MathayanPadayaci"1i AIR 1992 SC 115; Kehar Singh v. Yash Pal and Ors.AIR 1990 SC 2212; Bismil/ah Begum (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs. v. Rahmatu/lah Khan (Dead) by LRs. H AIR 1998 SC 970: 1998 (1) SCR 284 - relied on. DSR STEEL (P) LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 585 ORS. 1.2 The Regulatory Commission has, recorded a clear A finding of fact that the old incentive scheme was limited only upto 31st March, 2007 or till the Commission issued a tariff order whichever was earlier. It also recorded a finding that while considering revision of tariff it had gone into the proposals regarding introduction of a new B incentive scheme and approved the same, effectively bringing the existing scheme to an end and introducing a new scheme in its place. The Commission had declined to accept the contention that the appellant companies had altered their position to their detriment by making c additional investments or that there was any specific representation or promise made to them that the old scheme would inevitably continue till 31st March, 2007. The additional material which the appellants had sought to introduce belatedly at the review stage ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.