LexPTC INDIA LTD. versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 609 PTC INDIA LTD. v. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY A (Civil Appeal No. 3902 of 2006 etc.) B MARCH 15, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., S.H. KAPADIA, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN .REDDY AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) C Electricity Act, 2003: ss. 111, 178, 121 and 79(1) - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 framed in exercise of power uls. 178 - Vires of the Regulation challenged before D Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal u/s. 111 to examine the validity of the Regulations - Power of judicial review uls. 121 on the Appellate Tribunal - Power of CERC to cap the trading margins ·by making Regulations - Held: A regulation u/s. 178 is made under the authority of delegated E legislation and its validity can be tested only in judicial review and not by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal uls. 111 - Section 121 does not confer power of judicial review of the validity of the Regulations made u/s. 178, on the Appellate Tribunal - Applying the principle of "generality versus F enumeration'; CERC empowered to cap the trading margin under the authority of delegated legislation u/s. 178 - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006. Administrative law: Rules and Regulations vis-a-vis Law enacted by legislative - Nature of - Similarity between. 609 G H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A Quasi judicial orders and judicial decisions - Similarity B between. Order and 'Regulation' - Distinction between. Legislation: Substitution of a statutory provision - Effect of - Held: Substitution of a provision is a combination of repeal and fresh enactment. c Appellants challenged thP. vires of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 as null and void before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and had prayed for quashing of the said Regulations. The Tribunal dismissed 0 the appeals holding that its jurisdiction was restricted by the limits imposed by the parent Statute, i.e., the Electricity Act, 2003. The Tribunal held that the appropriate course of action for the appellants was to proceed by way of judicial review under the Constitution of India. Hence the present appeals. E The questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) Whether the Appella~e Tribunal constituted under the 2003 Act has jurisdiction u/s. 111 of the Act, to examine the validity of the 2006 Regulations (ii) Whether F capping of trading margins could be done by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) by making a Regulation in that regard u/s. 178 of 2003 Act and (iii) Whether Parliament has conferred power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity u/s. 121 of G the 2003 Act. H Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. A regulation u/s. 178 is made under the authority of delegated legislation and consequently its PTC INDIA LTD. v. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY 611 REGULATORY COMM. THR. SECRY. validity can be tested only in judicial review proceedings A before the courts and not by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 111 of Electricity Act, 2003. [Para 59] [684-H; 685-A] 1.2. The decision-making and regulation-making 8 functions are both assigned to CERC. Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by regulation and litigation. Laws from all three sources are binding. A statutory instrument, such as a rule or regulation, emanates from the exercise of delegated legislative power which is a part of administrative process C resembling enactment of law by the legislature whereas a quasi-judicial order comes from adjudication which is also part of administrative process resembling a judicial decision by a court of law. [Para 37] [664-H; 655-A-C] Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1990) 3 sec 223, referred to. D 1.3. Price fixation exercise is actually legislative in character, unless by the terms of a particular statute it is E made quasi-judicial as in the case of Tariff fixation u/s. 62 made appealable u/s. 111 of the 2003 Act, though Section 61 is an enabling provision for the framing of regulations by CERC. If one takes "Tariff'' as a subject-matter, one finds that under Part VII of the 2003 Act actual determination/ fixation of tariff is d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.