WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus GAJENDRA HALDEA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 09-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_) 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 827 
WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 
. v. 
GAJENDRA HALDEA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2007) 
APRIL 9, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 121 - Appeal against order C 
passed by Electricity Regulatory Commission - Exercise of 
revisional supervisory powers by Appellate Tribunal for 
Electricity uls.121- Held: Was not permissible as respondent 
could not be treated as a person aggrieved under the Act. 
D 
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Gajendra Haldea & Ors. 
(2008) 11 SCALE 313, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 11 SCALE 313 
relied on 
Para 2 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 275 
of 2007. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2006 of the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 121 of the 
F 
Electricity Act, 2003. 
Shanti Bhushan, M.G. Ramachandran, H.K. Puri, Sanjeev 
Kumar, Avinash Menon, Vishal Gupta, Kumar Mihir (for M/s. 
Khaitan & Co.) Hemantika Wahi, Mamta Tushir, Somnath 
Padhan, Ugra Shankar Prasad, AK. Ganeshan, S. Shashtri, 
G 
K.V. Mohan, Pratik Dham, C.K. Rai, D. Julis Regmei, Sridhar 
• 
Potaraju, Raj Kumar Mehta, U. Sharma, Suresh Chandra 
Tripathy, Richa Srivastava (for Gopal Jain) and lndu Sharma 
827 
H 
'-
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
'-
A for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
B 
to the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, 
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as to the 'Tribunal'). The 
I-
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 
c Tribunal accepted that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (in 
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 
D appellant is that only appropriate Regulatory Commission can 
invoke provisions of Section 60 upon arriving at a finding that 
a particular licensee or generator had conducted himself in the 
specified manner which has an adverse effect on competition 
in the electricity industry. According to the appellant the Tribunal 
E 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 
determine tariff in exercise of its revisional supervisory powers 
under Section .121 of the Act. It was pointed out that the 
F 
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 
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 
G decision of this Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. 
Gajendra Haldea and Ors. (2008 ( 11) SCALE 313) holding 
that respondent-Gajendra Haldea cannot be treated as a 
person aggrieved under the Act. 
.. 
H 
3. Respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the 
_,. 
. , 
WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY REGULA TORY v . 
829 
,) 
GAJENDRA HALDEA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
judgment and submitted that Grid Corporation's case (supra) A 
has no application to the facts of the case. 
4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions Section 111 
needs to be noted. The same reads as follows: 
"111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. -( 1) Any person B 
aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer 
under this Act (except under section 127) or a.n order made 
by the Appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer 
an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity: 
" 
c 
Provided that any person appealing against the 
order of the adjudicating officer levying any penalty shall, 
while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty: 
" 
Provided further that where in any particular case, the 
Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such D 
penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may 
dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as 
it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation 
of penalty. 
E 
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within 
a pe

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