LexM/S. JAYASAWALS NECO LTD. versus CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 752
MIS. JAYASAWALS NECO LTD.
v.
CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
{Civil Appeal No. 1368 of2007)
FEBRUARY 22, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.)
Electricity Act, 2003 - ss.45, 46, 64. 94 - Power intensive
industry - Consumption pattern - Load factor - Calculation_ of
monthly minimum charges - Petition filed by Respondent No.2-State
Electricity Board (CSEB) ulss. 45, 46 and 64 for determination of
Retail Supply Tariff for the financial year 2005-2006 - Stale
Electricity Regulatory Commission while taking into consideration
the pattern of consumption fixed 30% of load factor as minimum
charges - Appellant filed petilion u!s.94 whereupon taking note of
consumption in the year in question, the Commission reduced the
monthly payment of charges to 10% of load Jae/or - Propriety of -
Held: Commission has returned a ca/egorical finding Iha/ appellant
no/ liable to pay minimum charges, however, it is not a determination
in absoluteness - it depends upon !he scrutiny and analysis of the
factual score - Factual ana~vsis is necessary and certain conditions
precedent are required lo be gone info for purpose of determination
as regards the aspect whether there should be abolition of the
minimum charges for financial year 2005-2006 or no/ - Commission
lo dwell upon the same and then only such analysis could be
scrutinised in appeal by the appellate aulhority in ifs proper
perspective - Thus, mailer remilledback to !he Commission for fresh
delermination.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Both the appellants and the respondent-
Commission lay emphasis on the "consumption pattern nf the
load factor" for the calculation of monthly minimum charges. It
is the admitted positiou that the Commission has returned a
categorical finding that the likes of the appellant are not liable to
752
MIS. JAYASAWALS NECO LTD. v. CHHATTISGARH STATE
ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
pay the minimum charges. However, it is not a determination in
absoluteness. It depends upon the scrutiny and analysis of the
factual score. To elucidate, abolition of minimum charges is not
stated as a principle of law but has been so adjudicated on the
basis of certain conditions precedent being satisfied. Therefore,
the factual score, delin~ation thereof and the ultimate analysis
thereon constitute the structural pillar of the discussion. [Para
12) [757-G-H; 758-A]
2. The Tribunal did not go into the said aspect. In the
order passed by the tribunal, it has really not taken note of the
order, wherein as a concept which is founded on factual analysis,
the minimum charges stood abolished. Needless to say, as the
conclusion is based on appreciation of relevant facts and other
enquiry, it was incumbent on the Commission to dwell npon the
same and then only such analysis could be scrutinised in appeal
by the appellate authority in its proper perspective. It is a statutory
obligation. At this juncture, it is fairly stated by the counsel for
the Commission that the factual analysis can be made in an
apposite manner by the Commission but not by the tribunal at
the first instance. The counsel for the appellant does not dispute
the said position. [Para 13) [758-B-Dj
3. As the factual aualysis is necessary aud certain
couditions precedent are required to be gone into for the purpose
of determination as regards the aspect whether there should be
abolition of the minimum charges for the financial year 2005-2006
or not, the competent authority, the matter is remitted to the
Commission for fresh determination. [Para 14) [758-D-E)
CIViLAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1368
of2007.
From the Judgment and Order (i) dated 05.04.2006 in Appeal
No. 186 of2005 and (ii) dated 17.10.2006 in AFR No. 1208 in Appeal
753
A
B
c
D
E
F
No. 1.86 of2005 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi.
G
. Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Anu Tyagi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Swapna Seshadri, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Neha
Garg, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
754
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 2 S.C.R.
DIPAK MfSRA, J. I. The respondent No.2. Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Board (CSEB), tiled Petition No.5/2005 under Sections 45,
46 and 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Act') for
determination of Retail Supply Tariff for theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.