PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICLTY BOARD versus NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 10-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRIClTY BOARD 
A 
v. 
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER iO, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 : Section 16 . 
. Electricity Tariff-Hydro-generation and inter-State transmission-
Fix(ltion of norms for-By Central Electricity Regulatory Commission_;.High 
C 
Court, by its interim order, virtually stayed such fixation ofnorms-Correctness · 
of-Held: When appellate jurisdiction is conferred, the jurisdiction of appellate 
authority is of the wildest amplitude-In proper cases, interim relief may be 
granted-However, in the exercise of administrative or advisory jurisdiction 
question of grant of interim stay may not arise-Interim stay may not be 
granted in a routine way or as a matter of course-Hence, High Court's order 
D 
set aside. 
The respondent challenged before the High Court under Section 16 
of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 the norms for tarriff 
for hydrogeneration and inter-state transmission fixed by the Central 
E 
Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under the Act. The High 
Court, by its interim order, had virtually stayed the impugned order •. 
Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Section 16 of the 
Act only provided for filing of appeal but it did not empower the High · 
Court to stay the operation· of the order. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. It is true that Section 16 of the Electricity Regulatory 
G 
Commissions Act, 1998 provides that any person aggrieved by the decision 
or order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission may file an 
appeal to the High Court. There is no provision in the Act or the RuJes 
indicating that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the High Court 
has power to grant interim relief. [10-H; 11-A] 
H 
7 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
. A 
1.2. It is true that when appellate jurisdiction is conferred, unless 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
there is a specific provision to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the appellate 
authority would be of widest amplitude. In proper case, such authority 
may have jurisdiction to grant interim relief. However, this would depend 
upon the nature of the order passed by the competent authority in the 
discharge of its function. In case of exercise of administrative or advisory 
jurisdiction by the authority there may not be any. question of granting 
interim stay. Even if there is power to grant interim stay, it cannot be 
exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course in view of the special 
nature of jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission. Hence this was not 
a fit case for grant of interim relief so as to make the Commission's report 
virtually nugatory. (11-B-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7082-7084 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2001 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.M. No. 232/2001 in F.A.O. Nos. 13112001, 159/2000 and 88 of 2001. 
Shanti Bhushan, Ashwani Kumar, Swaroop Singh,' H.M. Singh, Anil 
Hooda, Rubinder Ghuman, Ranjan, M.G. Ramachandran, Vishal Gupta, Prashant 
Bhushan, Sanjeev Kapoor, Narender Verma, Sanjay Pathak, Pramod Dayal, 
Ms. Ruchi, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. Ariupama Grover, Rana Mukherjee, Ms. 
Sumita. Mukherjee, Navin Prakash, (NP), S.B. Upadhyay, Satish K: Agnihotri, 
Rohit Singh, Manish Singhvi, Ashok K. Mahajan, R.K. Arora and R~j Kumar 
Mehta for the appearing parties. 
The Judge_ment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH,.J. Leave granted. 
Appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board and other States Electricity 
Boards have filed these appeals against the iinpugned judgment and order dated· 
, G 
7th March, 2001_ passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous 
.) 
·~,MWr2~2~0f1_20JH11nJ:if\.Q¢-T~,14~ gf)f:QW, JfAO No .. 159 of 2000 and FAO No.88 
nu9'f'.2'QO!:;~J ~!i b:;v ,,h:,i~~H no" l'.J'"f mt> h;1H ,>.';lhi·rn1q ~Wi,11 ,hl1 ?1wi1.~"'ll•ll'--' 
llfJ :iiit n;rn 1wie~i1nm1d ·1101,:111•1'}.fi 1thi"Ihsl.>l linw~'.J 1111 )n ,.,lnl> 10 
The Central Electricity Regulator¥ Commission (hereinafter referred to 
i'.'.)fs1R ':1rl1 :IO ;:;;,. ..,,!J Iii tHHr.11/1 Hi t)H "'~n· .. m I ,J'HJtL.t li!!"I ·Jiil of ·1u,1<rn 
as."the Commission") constituted under the Electricity Regulato!")' Commi~Sions 
h uo . .J i!;:lH ~. :)i<J ··~ou: .. hhi".l H!I. ~n:w.sqtJI> ')tu ),!IH~!TI!li'.;J ~Ulli?( 1Jm; !>OU!;.J:.!UOI 
H 
Act, 1998 (heremafter referred to a~
1
"tbe".Act"),by
1
1ts order dated 21.12.2.00

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