2012 (3) Supreme 177
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(T.S. Thakur & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.)
M/s. DSR Steel (P) Ltd. — Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3814 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No.4393/2007 and No.4396/2007
Decided on 01-05-2012
AIR 2005 SC 1008; AIR 1999 SC 3325; AIR 1992 SC 115; AIR 1990 SC 2212; AIR 1998 SC 970 – Relied Upon
(b) Promissory estoppel – Incentive Scheme for industries – No unequivocal representation regarding continuation of the scheme till 31st March, 2007 – No material to support that the appellants had indeed made any investment or changed their position to their detriment in view of the incentive scheme – Doctrine of promissory estoppel not attracted. (Para 9)
(1979) 2 SCC 409; (1995) 1 SCC 274; (1997) 3 SCC 398; (1985) 4 SCC 369 – Relied upon
(c) Electricity Act, 203 – Section 125 r/w rules 94 and 98 of Electricity Rules, 2005 – Limitation – the period of limitation commences from the date of communication of the decision or order and not from the date of its pronouncement. (Para 11)
(2010) 5 SCC 23 – Referred
(d) Doctrine of merger – In case of appeal against review/revision – In case a Tribunal dismisses review/revision petition against a decree or order, in effect the decree or order is affirmed – No merger takes place – Period of limitation will relate to the original decree/order – Time taken in review may be condoned but even that will not imply merger of the original order with the Appellate order. (Para 14)
(2008) 1 SCC 520 – Relied upon
(1975) 1 SCC 774; (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Explained
Facts of the case:
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, submitted separate applications before the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission at Jaipur in terms of Sections 62 and 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for revision of tariff to be effective from December 1, 2004.
2. These requests were disposed of in terms of a common order dated 17th December, 2004. Several objections were filed and suggestions made by nearly 100 individuals and organisations in the course of the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission eventually directed that the revised tariff determined by it will become effective from 1st January, 2005 and remain in force till the same is amended by the Commission by a separate order passed by it.
3. The review petitions were rejected.
4. Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal were also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
There is no perversity in the impugned order.
ORDER
T.S. Thakur, J.-These appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 call in question the correctness of an order dated 23rd November, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity whereby a batch of appeals including those filed by the appellants against an order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, have been dismissed.
2. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (‘JVVNL’ for short), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (‘JDVVNL’ for short) and Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (‘AVVNL’ for short), submitted separate applications before the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short ‘Commission’) at Jaipur in terms of Sections 62 and 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for revision of tariff to be effective from December 1, 2004. Each one of these distribution companies (‘Discoms’ for short) had an existing tariff but in their respective applications they sought an identical tariff revision which requests were taken up by the Commission for consideration together and disposed of in terms of a common order dated 17th December, 2004, passed after notices regarding filing of the said applications were published in different newspapers having circulation in the State of Rajasthan. Several objections were filed and suggestions made by nearly 100 individuals and organisations in the course of the proceedings before the Commission. All these objections were then considered by the Commission no matter only 38 of those who had filed the same had complied with the requirement laid down by the former. A large number of people and organisations even applied for personal hearing and were heard on different dates at different venues fixed for the purpose. Some of these objections also related to individual problems of the consumers or disputes relating to bills and other matters which were directed to be considered by the Discoms and decision taken on the same under intimation to the persons concerned. Other issues including those questioning the maintainability of the petitions and alleging non-compliance with the regulations and directions of the Commission were also raised. Issues touching reforms in power sector, non-determination of the Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam’s tariff from whom the Discoms purchase electricity, poor performance of Vidyut Vitran Nigams were also agitated. Similarly objections to the proposed increase in tariff, interest charges, depreciation etc. too were raised and examined by the Commission. Suggestions regarding improvement, objections relating to high T&D losses, inadequacy of staff, continuation of un-metered supply, issue of deemed licensee and tariff for deemed licensee were also examined. Questions relating to high voltage supply, segregation of mixed load, billing demand, demand based tariff for MIP consumers, power factor and shunt capacitor surcharge, vigilance checking of consumers, minimum billing, agriculture, domestic and industrial tariff too were examined by the Commission apart from several other issues that were placed before the Commission to which the Commission has made a reference in its order dated 8th June, 2006. The Commission eventually directed that the revised tariff determined by it will become effective from 1st January, 2005 and remain in force till the same is amended by the Commission by a separate order passed by it.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commission, the appellants and a large number of other consumers in that category filed review petitions under Section 94 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking review and continuation of the incentive scheme. These review petitions were dismissed by the Commission in terms of its order dated 8th June, 2006. The Commission noted the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that they were affected by the withdrawal of the incentive scheme. It was also urged that these consumers had made investments on the basis of the incentive scheme bona fide bel
Bismillah Begum (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs. v. Rahmatullah Khan (Dead) by LRs.
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivalalsing Rajput
Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India
Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.