U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 1060 
A 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
t~ 
II. 
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 111 O of 2007) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND 
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998: 
s. 13 - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission -
Power to regulate tariff - Factors to be taken into account -
Operation and Maintenance expenses - Increase in salary 
D of employees of generating company (NTPC) consequent 
upon revision of pay scales - HELO: Central Commission has 
exclusive jurisdiction to frame tariff - For this purpose, actual 
cost required for payment to employees being part of 
Operation and Maintenance cost could fall for determination 
E 
(Jy Central Commission. 
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of 
Business) Regulations, 1999: 
Regulations 92, 93, 116 and 117 - Revision of tariff -
... 
F HELD: In exercising such jurisdiction, Central Commission 
must act within reasonable time - Application should have 
been filed within the period during which tariff .order was in force 
-
Besides, although provisions of s. 11 CPC are not 
applicable, but general principles of res judicata may be 
G applicable - NTPC was aware of impending revision of pay 
scales and had provisionally implemented it in part -
Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that increase in salary with 
.. 
retrospective effect could have been a subject matter for 
determination of tariff in another period - Electricity Regulatory 
H 
1060 
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. NATIONAL THERMAL 
1061 
POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
~-~ 1 
Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 
A 
2001: Regulation 7. 2( d)(i) and (iv) - Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 - s.11 - Res judicata - Limitation. 
The respondent-Corporation (NTPC), pursuant to 
revision of salary of its employees w.e.f. 1.7.1997, filed 
petition before the Central Electricity Regulatory 
B 
Commission for revision of tariff for its stations at Korba 
~ 
(Chattisgarh) and Dadri (UP) for.the years 1997-98 to 
4 
1999-2000, taking into account its liability towards arrears 
of salary of its employee from 1.7.1997. The Central c 
Commission after taking into consideration the data 
provided by NTPC including for the year 2000-2001 and 
the provisions made during the years 1997-98 to 1999-
2000 towards anticipated revised costs therefore, 
determined the operational and financial norms for the 
D 
; 
generating stations of the Corporation which was 
~ 
inclusive of employees' costs. NTPC filed revision 
applications in the year 2005 in respect of Korba and 
Dadri power stations claiming allowances of actual 
revised costs incurred by it on account of arrears paid 
in 2000-2001. The Commission dismissed the revision 
E 
applications. The appeals of NTPC were allowed by the 
Appellate Tribunal holding that amounts of arrears paid 
'( 
by NTPC on 2000-2001 on account of employees cost be 
,,. 
considered in tariff fixation for reimbursement, as 
admissible by the Regulations, in the forthcoming tariff 
F 
period. Aggrieved, the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. filed 
the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is well-settled that the Central Electricity 
G 
->j 
Regulatory Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to 
A 
frame not only tariff but also to make any amendment, 
alterations and additions in. regard thereto. [Para 28) 
[1077-D] 
H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Making of a tariff is a continuous process. It can 
be amended or altered by the Central Commission, if any 
occasion arises therefor. The said power can be 
exercised not only on an application filed by the 
generating companies but by the Commission also on its 
s own motion.Regulations 92 and 94 of the Central 
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of 
Business) Regulations, 1999 do not restrict the power of 
the Central to make additions or alterations in the tariff. 
[Para 36] [1084-C-D] 
c 
1.3. The Central Commission has a plenary power. Its 
inherent jurisdiction is saved. The provisions of the 
Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 do not put 
any restriction on the Central Commission in the matter 
of exercise of such a jurisdiction. [Para 35] [1083-H; 1084-
D A-B] 
1.4. The concept of regulatory jurisdiction provides 
for revisit of the tariff. It is now a well-settled principle of 
law that a subordinate legislation validly made becomes 
E a part of 

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