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

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

. A 1.2. It is true that when appellate jurisdiction is conferred, unless

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 Rj 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 ,>.'; lhirn1q ~Wi,11 , hl1 ?1wi1.~"'ll•ll'--'

llfJ :iiit n; rn 1wiei1nm1d 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 21.12.2.000 ii . iJc-11 ; h-\11 .1:1wn r•!P'-' m uu;1:g 01 l'.fllOff i!:lifl

- J

has fixed the norms for tariff for hydro generation and inter-state transmissibn.

That order was challenged by the respondent - National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "NTPC") by filing PAO No.159 of 2000 under Section 16 of the Act before the High Court of Delhi.

The High Court by its interim order has virtually stayed the operation of the impugned order by laying down certain conditions and by observing that. it appears desirable that all the directions issued by the Commission shall be observed to charge tariff on the basis of the pre-existing norms. It was also observed that the NTPC shall continue to charge tariff on the basis of preexisting norms only so long as the arrears up to 31st March, 2001 due against different responderits mainly Stae Electricity Boards are not adjusted and the moment the arrears of NTPC stand paid, the concerned State Electricity Board and all concerned respondents shall be entitled to move the ourt for fresh consideration. The Court also observed that it was just an interim order and after the group for formulating the tariff policy takes a decision; the Court shall be informed about the decision taken by the group for formulating the tariff

 policy and the party shall be entitled .to be heard afresh. These interim D directions are challenged by the Punjab State E, lectricity Board (PSEB).

At the time of hearing of these matters, learned counsel for the PSEB submitted that the interim order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal. He also contends that Section 16 only provides for filing of appeal but it does not empower the High Court to stay the operation of the order which E was passed by the Commission after cotisidefing the submission as well as evaluaiing various norms required for fixin.g the tariff .

. In its report, the Commission has observed as under:

"l.4.1. The terms and conditions as will be notified, shall, apply to p all utilities cove.red UQ.der Section 13(a) (b) and (c) of the ERC Act unless specifically stated otherwise. However, it should be remembered . that these terms and conditions shall apply wherever cost based tariff is determined by the Commission. These terins and conditions shall be in force for a period of 3 years effective from 1st April, 2001 and reviewable/renewable at the discretion of the Commission.

1.4.3. If this order creates any unfairness, or hardship, parties may approach ihe <; omillission for redressal, within 60 days of issue in accordance with the provisions for review as contained in Regulation

1, " 103 o, f.the C9nductof Business.Regulation.".

A In para 151 the Commission has kept in view the twin objectives

contained in Section 13(e) according to which tariff shall be fair to the consumers and facilitate mobilization of adequate resources for the power sector.

In its operative order, the Commission has observed tha.t the normal tariff period shall be a period of five years but shall at this stage be for a period bf three years.

Finally it has observed that:

"Ensuring the" financial viability of efficient and proactive utilities, would be a prime concern of the Commission. At. the same time, safeguarding the interests of the consumers is a major responsibility of the Commission, particularly, when the market_ structure and system. conditions do not support competition. The Commission has to play a balancing role and it intends to discharge this responsibility transparently, through a consultative mode. it expects that participative decision making will lighten the burden of transiting to a more efficient system, for all stareholders."

It is true that under Section 38(1) of the Act, the Central Commission has to discharge its functions by taking into consideration directions issued by the Central Government in matters of policy involving public interest.

Nothing has been pointed out to indicate that Government has issued such directions. In any case all these questions are required to be dealt with at .the time of final hearing of the matter and at this stage, it would be difficult to hold that prima facie, the norms prescribed by the Central Commission are arbitrary or ex facie unjustifiable, particularly in view of Section 13(e) which inter alia provides that its function is to aid and advise the Central Government in formulation of tariff policy which shall be (i) fair to the consumer; and (ii) facilitate mobilization of adequate resources for the power sector ..

Further, the. Commission has submitted its Report after considering all relevant_ material which was placed before it and after hearing all objections raised by the concerned parties. In view of the time frame prescribed by the Commission, if the interim stay order continues indefinitely, the Report would become totally nugatory. If the norms prescribed by the Commission are impleµientecf and finally if the appeal is allowed or norms are modified, NTPC could be appropriately compensated.

H Lastly, it is true that section 16 only provides UJat any person aggrieved

- ;

by the decision or order .of the Central Commission may file an appeal to the High Court. No further procedure is prescribed under the Act and no rules are shown to us prescribing any procedure. Learned counsel for the parties have also not pointed out any provision in the Act or the Rules indicating that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the High Court has power to grant such interim relief. It is true that when appellate jurisdiction is conferred unless there is a specific provision to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the appellate authority would be of widest amplitude. In proper cases, such authority may have jurisdiction to grant interim reliefs. However, this would depend upon the nature of the order passed by the competent authority in discharge of its functions. In case of exercise of administrative or advisory jurisdiction by the authority, there may not be any question of granting interim stay. It is needless to point out that 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. However, considering

the fact that the appeal is pending before the High Court, in our view, the aforesaid question is not required to be finally determined at this stage becaus~ D the High Court itself has observed that the matter may be placed for further hearing after the Group for formulating the Tariff Policy takes decision and that the parties would be entitled to be heard afresh. Similar are the observations made by the Commission in its Report.

Hence, in our view, this was not a fit case for grant of interim relief E so as to make the Report virtually nugatory. Further, the High Court in its impugned judgment has observed that "this is just an interim order" and after the Group for formulating the Tariff Policy takes a decision, the High Court should be informed about the decision taken by the Group for formulating the tariff policy and parties would be entitled to be heard afresh. In this view F of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court requires to be set aside and the Court is requested to decide the . appeals on merits as expeditiously as possible.

In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

v.s.s.

Appeals allowed.