MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus GAGAN NARANG & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 01-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 239 : 2025 INSC 2
Municipal Corporation of Delhi  
v. 
Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7463-7464 of 2023)
02 January 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the application under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 
could have been made by the Appellant-MCD, a “local authority” 
within the meaning of Section 2(41) of the Act. 
Headnotes†
Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.63, 86, 2(41), 174, 175 – Determination 
of tariff by bidding process – Functions of the State 
Commission – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – r.15 – 
Appellant, if could issue tariff based bid and Request for 
Proposal (RfP) for setting up the Waste to Energy Project – 
Petition filed by appellant before the Delhi Electricity Regulatory 
Commission (DERC) for approval of the bidding process of 
the Project – Waste to Energy Research & Technology Council 
(WTERT) challenged the authority of the appellant to issue the 
tariff-based bid and the RfP in setting up the Project – DERC 
dismissed the petition of WTERT while allowed that of the 
appellant and approved the bid tariff of Rs.7.38/KWh for the 
project and directed the Distribution Licensee to negotiate the 
terms of the Power Purchase Agreement with the appellant – 
Orders of DERC set aside by APTEL holding that since the 
appellant was neither a distribution licensee nor a generating 
company, it had no jurisdiction to file an application u/s.63 
for adoption of tariff – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Appellant was 
establishing the Project in order to perform its statutory obligations – 
DERC granted its approval to the tariff with certain conditions after 
taking into consideration all the relevant factors – However, the same 
was upset by APTEL on a hyper-technical ground – Under/s.63, the 
* Author
240
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appropriate Commission is entitled to adopt the tariff if such tariff 
has been determined through a transparent process of bidding in 
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government – 
Power of the Commission is notwithstanding anything contained 
in s.62 – A plain reading of s.63 shows that it does not restrict 
its invocation only by Discoms or generating companies – The 
interpretation of APTEL is adding words in s.63 which the legislature 
did not intend to – Further, APTEL could not have read s.63 in 
isolation – s.63 will have to be read in harmony with s.86(1)(b) – The 
legislature intended that the State Commission while exercising its 
powers u/s.63 shall adopt the tariff when it has been determined 
in the bidding process – However, while adopting the same it will 
have to be satisfied that the same is done in a transparent manner 
and as to whether the interests of the generators/Discoms are 
balanced with the interests of the consumers – Reading s.63 in the 
manner as interpreted by the APTEL, would impose unnecessary 
restrictions on the powers and duties of the State Commission 
u/s.86(1)(b) which are of a very wide amplitude – Furthermore, 
there is no inconsistency between the provisions of s.63 and r.15, 
SWM Rules – r.15 enacted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 
1986, mandates the appellant to undertake WTE project – Insofar 
as the WTE projects are concerned, the provisions under the Act 
will have to be read in addition to the provisions u/r.15 and not in 
derogation thereof – Also, s.86(1)(e) r/w r.6.4 of the Tariff Policy 
provide for promoting cogeneration and generation of electricity from 
renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for 
connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity from such sources, 
a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a 
distribution licensee – APTEL also failed to take into consideration 
that the WTE project in question was in the larger public interest 
providing for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the 
city of Delhi – Orders of DERC affirmed – Environment (Protection) 
Act, 1986. [Paras 28, 29, 35, 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54-56, 58]
Interpretation of Statutes – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.63 – 
Interpretation of – Literal interpretation – Courts by judicial 
interpretation not to add, alter, or delete the words when the 
statute upon its plain reading is capable of giving a meaning 
as intended by the legislature:
Held: When the statute read in a literal manner is capable of 
giving meaning to the provision

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