PTC INDIA LTD. versus GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 09-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 815 
_; 
PTC INDIA LTD. 
A 
v. 
GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2007) 
APRIL 09, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003: 
c 
ss. 60 and 121 -Appellate Tribunalfor Electricity- Power 
of - Plea that Tribunal invoked s. 60 to direct all Regulatory 
Commissions to fix trading margins as if it involved tariff 
determination - HELD: Order passed by Tribunal cannot be 
maintained and is set aside. 
D 
The instant appeal was filed against the order of the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. It was contended that in 
view of s.60 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Tribunal was 
not empowered to fix trading margins in respect of 
traders, intermediators etc. in exercise of its revisional E 
supervisory powers u/s 121 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It 
was also submitted that neither respondent no. 1 initiated 
any proceedings before the Regulatory Commission 
concerned nor did he make any grievance relating to 
excessive exercise/non-exercise of jurisdiction by such F 
Regulatory Commission. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the decision in Grid Corporation's* G 
case, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be 
~ 
maintained and the same is set aside. [Para 6) (820-C-D] 
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Gajendra Haldea and 
815 
H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A Ors. 2008 (11) SCALE 313, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
-
2008 (11) SCALE 313 
relied on 
para 3 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 68 
of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.20Q6 of the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Petition No. 1 
of 2005. 
c 
Shanti Bhsuhan, M.G. Ramachandran, H.K. Puri, Pratik 
Dham, C.K. Rai, D. Julis Regmei, Sridhar Potaraju, Sanjeev 
Kumar, Avinash Menon, Vishal Gupta, Kumar Mihir (M/s. for 
Khaitan & Co.) H. Wahi, Mamta Tushir, Somnath Padhan, Fox 
D Mandal & Co., Ugra Shankar Prasad, A.K. Ganeshan, S. 
Shashtri, K.V. Mohan, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Raj Kumar Mehta, 
U. Sharma, Amit Kapur, Poonam Verma, Anupam Verma, A. 
Guneshwar Sharma, Shrestha Verma, Richa Srivastava (for 
Gopal Jain), lndu Sharma for the appearing parties. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, 
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as to the 'Tribunal'). The 
F appeal has been filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 
2003 (in short the 'Act'). 
2. The primary stand of the appellant is that though the 
Tribunal accepted that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (in 
G short the 'Regulatory Commission') did not have any power to 
determine tariff for trading, it invoked Sections 60 and 66 of 
the Act to direct all Regulatory Commissions to fix trading 
margins as if it involved tariff determination. Stand of the 
~ . 
appellant is that only appropriate Regulatory Commission can 
H 
invoke provisions of Section 60 upon arriving at a finding that 
PTC INDIA LTD. v. GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. 
817 
) 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
a particular licensee or generator had conducted himself in the A 
,. 
specified manner which has an adverse effect on competition 
in the electricity industry. According to the appellant the Tribunal 
issued directions on assumptions and presumptions without 
~ 
any adjudication on tests laid down in Section 60 of the Act. In 
essence, the stand is that the Tribunal is not empowered to B 
determine tariff in exercise of its revisional supervisory powers 
under Section 121 of the Act. It was pointed out that the 
exercise of power under Section 121 of the Act was not 
permissible because respondent No.1-Gajendra Haldea had 
neither initiated any proceedings before the concerned c 
Regulatory Commission and had also not made any grievance 
relating to excessive exercise or non exercise of jurisdiction by 
such Regulatory Commission. Strong reliance is placed on a 
decision of this Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. 
; 
Gajendra Haldea and Ors. (2008 (11) SCALE 313) holding D 
that respondent-Gajendra Ha Idea cannot be treated. as a 
person aggrieved under the Act. 
3. Respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the 
judgment and submitted that Grid Corporation's case (supra) 
has no application to the facts of the case. 
E 
4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions Section 111 
needs to be noted. The same reads as follows: 
"111. Appeal to Appellate Tribuna

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