LexPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus M/S SIEL LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 156
A
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
~
II.
M/S SIEL LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5380~5389 of 2005)
B
AUGUST 18, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA,, JJ.]
,_
Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 2003 - ss. 29,
61 and 82 - Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 -
c s.9 - Determination of tariff by State Electricity Regulatory
Commission - Challenge to - Statutory appeals by industrial
consumers - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: Ap-
proach of High Court was not correct and analysis was not
done by it in the correct prospective, inasmuch as it introduced
D the concept of/deal situation - The ideal situation test has no
place in commercial evaluation - Hence, order of High Court
set aside and matter remitted to Electricity Commission with
-t"
direction to examine the matter afresh keeping in view the
''-{
parameters of the 2003 Act.
E
Respondent industrial consumers, challenged the
determination of tariff by the Punjab State Electricity Regu-
latory Commission by filing statutory appeals before the
High Court. The dispute related to (i) estimation of agri-
cultural. consumption and trans11;1ission and distribution
F loss (T & D loss) (ii) energy input and coal transportation,
(iii) manpower requirement and (iv) investment and rate
~
of return.
The High Court held that the Electricity Commission
G
had not addressed itself to relevant parameters and al-
lowed the appeal after stressing on certain aspects like
cross subsidy and inadequacy of the materials produced.
Hence the present appeals by the Punjab State Electric-
-L
ity Board.
H
156
~
-~~
......
J
)<
t
'
T
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. M/S
157
SIEL LTD. AND ORS.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1.The basic issue which the High Court tried
to address related to cross subsidy. But it introduced a
concept of ideal situation which is not the correct ap-
proach. The ideal situation test has no place in the case
A
of commercial evaluation. Actual expenditure has to be
B
the basis and not the hypothetical ideal situation. Ideal
situation is essentially contemplation of the future. [Paras
7, 11, 18] [159, H; 160,A; 161,B; 163,G-H]
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. etc. etc. v. Andhra Pradesh State Elec-
tricity Board and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 299; West Bengal Elec-
C
tricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715
and Association of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of A.P
and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 711 - referred to.
1.2. Since the High Court's approach is not correct 0
and analysis was not done in the correct prospective, the
order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is re-
mitted to the Commission to examine the matter afresh
keeping in view the parameters of the Electricity Regula-
tory Commissions Act, 2003. [Para 19] [164,A-B]
E
Case Law Reference
(1991) 4 SCC 299
referred to
Para 15
(2002) 8 SCC 715
referred to
Para 16
(2002) 3 SCC 711
referred to
Para 17
F
·'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :·Civil Appeal Nos.
5389 of 2005
From the Judgment and final Order dated 21.11.2003 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.0.
Nos. 5371, 5243, 5298, 5557 of 2002, 216, 278, 371, 412, G
508 and 875 of 2003
WITH
C.A. Nos. 5394, 5395, 5392, 5397, 5390, 5391, 5393,
5396, 5379 and 5398 of 2005.
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
A
K.N. Bhatt, Ranjit Kumar, M.G. Ramachandran, Mohinder
*
Jit Singh Rupal, Kaadmbri, Sacchin Puri, Vikas (for Mis. Gagrat
..
& Co.), Suresh Chandra Tripathy, P.H. Parekh, Ajay K. Jha, Nitin
Thukral, (for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.) Nidhesh Gupta, Vinod
Shukla, Deepak Goel, S. Janani, Shobha, Rakesh K. Sharma,
B Madhukar Agarwal, Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra,
B. Vijayalakshimi Menon, Shruti, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and
Shalu Sharma for the Appearing Parties.
,.
The Judgment of the Court wad delivered by
,
c
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Cha!Lenge in these appeals is
to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court allowing the statutory appeals filed by the respon-
dents in these appeals questioning the order of the Punjab State
Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short the 'Commission').
D The determination of tariff by the C~rimission was the subject
matter of challenge.
·2. The High Court held that the Commission had not ad-
1"
dressed itself to the relevant parameters and, therefore, the
'{ """'
order suffers from infirmities. TheExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.