LI Network
Published on: October 7, 2023 at 19:23 IST
The Supreme Court issued strong criticism against the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) for challenging the orders issued by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that rectified the Commission’s own order.
While reminding the Commission of its obligation to abide by APTEL’s orders, the Supreme Court questioned the Commission’s decision to appeal.
The Supreme Court highlighted that, under Section 62, the Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers. The Commission has previously filed appeals against the Appellate Tribunal’s orders in appeals pursuant to Section 111 of the Electricity Act.
The Appellate Tribunal, in these appeals, has assessed the legality and validity of the Commission’s decisions made while exercising quasi-judicial authority. In essence, the Appellate Tribunal has scrutinized the accuracy of the Commission’s orders.
The Supreme Court expressed serious doubts about the Commission’s appropriateness and legality in appealing against the Appellate Tribunal’s orders, which essentially corrected its own orders. The Court pointed out that the Commission cannot be considered an aggrieved party, except in certain instances where the issue pertains to the Commission’s non-compliance with the Appellate Tribunal’s orders. The Court emphasized that if the Commission were performing legislative functions, the situation would be different, as stated by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S Oka.
The Court examined a series of appeals challenging the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decisions under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003. These appeals were directed against the tariff-fixing orders issued by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, established under Section 82 of the Electricity Act.
The Supreme Court asserted that there was a limited scope for intervention in this matter.
The Court noted that Section 125 of the Electricity Act, which allows an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Appellate Tribunal, confines the appeal’s scope to substantial questions of law, as outlined in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Additionally, the Court recognized that the Commission’s tariff-fixing function under Section 62 of the Electricity Act is quasi-judicial in nature. Furthermore, both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal are composed of expert bodies.
Consequently, when examining challenges to the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal’s decisions, the Court took into account that these decisions were made by expert bodies.
The Court’s intervention is limited, and it normally refrains from interfering with the factual findings established by the Commission and/or the Appellate Tribunal, aside from the constraints imposed by Section 125 of the Electricity Act, which permits appeals based solely on substantial questions of law.
In its ruling, the Court granted limited relief in two of the appeals from the batch but dismissed the remaining appeals where the Commission had contested the Appellate Tribunal’s orders.
Case Title: GRIDCO Ltd. V. Western Electricity Supply Company
