WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 09-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 5 S.C.R. 838 
A 
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
• 
GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 369 of 2007) 
B 
APRIL 09, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 121 - Power of appellate tribunal 
c - Exercise of - Order of appellate tribunal directing the 
Regulatory Commissions to fix trade margins invoking ss. 60 
and 66 - Maintainability of - Held: In view of Grid Corporation's 
case holding that the respondent could not be treated as a 
'person aggrieved' under the Act, order of tribunal not 
D maintainable and set aside. 
Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Gajendra Haldea and 
Ors. 2008 (11) SCALE 313, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 369 
E of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2006 of the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Exercise of Power under 
Section 121 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 
F 
Shanti Bhushan, M.G. Ramachandran, H.K. Puri, Sanjeev 
Kumar, Avinash Menon, Vishal Gupta, Kumar Mihir (for Khaitan 
& Co.) Hemantika Wahi, Mamta Tushir, Somnath Padhan, Ugra 
Shankar Prasad, AK. Ganeshan, S. Shashtri, K.V. Mohan, 
G 
Pratik Dham, C.K. Rai, 0. Julis Regmei, Sridhar Potaraju, Raj 
Kumar Mehta, U. Sharma and Richa Srivastava (for Gopal 
Jain), lndu Sharma for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
838 
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. 
839 
GAJENDRA HALDEA AND ORS. 
_,}. 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is A 
to the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, 
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as to the 'Tribunal'). The 
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 
B 
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 c 
margins as if it involved tariff determination. Stand of the 
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 
D 
.-! 
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 
determine tariff in exercise of its revisional supervisory powers 
under Section 121 of the Act. It was pointed out that the E 
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 
F 
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 
that respondent-Gajendra Haldea cannot be treated as a 
person aggrieved under the Act. 
G 
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. 
H 
< 
·
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer 
8 
under this Act (except under section 127) or an order made 
by the Appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer 
an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity: 
Provided that any person appealing against the 
order of the adjudicating officer levying any penalty shall, 
c 
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 
penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may 
D 
dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as 
it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation 
~ 
of penalty. 
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within 
E 
a period of forty 

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