IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of provision for transfer of pending proceedings under Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 to forum under Electricity Act, 2003 The High Court is competent to entertain appeal against Commission's order under 1998 Act.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice - Appeal - Appeal is not merely a regulating procedure - Right of appeal and choice of forum is a vested right integral to institution of lis - It accrues with the institution of suit - This right perishes only when appellate forum is abolished without any alternative forum in its place. (Para 23)
        (1955) 1 SCR 893; 1994 Supp (1) SCC 257; AIR 1953 SC 221; AIR 1957 SC 540; 1905 AC 369 - Relied upon
        AIR 1960 SC 794; (1994) 5 SCC 465; (1996) 8 SCC 388 - Relied upon impliedly
        (b) Interpretation of statutes - Retrospectively - Enactments dealing with substantive rights - Primarily prospective - Retrospectivity should be expressly given - It can also be inferred by necessary intention or implication. (Para 24)
        (c) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 111 r/w section 27, Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Section 111 not providing for transfer of pending cases by express stipulation - Mere creation of a different or a new appellate forum by itself not sufficient to infer an implied transfer. (Para 26)
        (d) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 185(2) r/w Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 27, Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Forum of appeal u/s 27 of 1998 Act - 2003 act not providing for transfer of proceedings - Section 6 of 1897 Act applies - A right acquired or accrued under a statute is unaffected by its repeal. (Para 28)
        (2001) 8 SCC 397; (2000) 2 SCC 536; (1980) 1 SCC 149; (2006) 6 SCC 289 - Relied upon
        (e) Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Sections 22(1)(d) and 22(2) - Terms, "efficiency, economy in the activity of the electricity industry" - Should not be construed narrowly - Directions of the Commission within purview of section 22(1)(d) - However upon the Board substantively complying with the directions, Commission ought not have imposed penalty. (Paras 33 and 34)
       Facts of the case:
        This case relates to the powers and functions of State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Appellate Tribunal vis-à-vis jurisdiction of High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
        There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result : Appeal disposed of.

Judgment :-

Dipak Misra, J.

These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common Judgment and order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in FAOs (Ord.) Nos. 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 & 494 of 2002 whereby the learned Single Judge overturned the decision dated 17.08.2002 rendered by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, “the Commission”) constituted under the provisions of Chapter IV of Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1998 Act”).

2. The controversy that has emerged for consideration being common to all the appeals, we shall adumbrate the facts from Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2009 for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts requisite to be stated are that the Commission was established for rationalization of electricity tariff, transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotions of efficient and environmentally benign policies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In exercise of the power conferred on it under Sections 22 and 29 of the 1998 Act the Commission vide order dated 29.10.2001 determined the tariff applicable for electricity in the State of Himachal Pradesh. While determining the tariff it also issued certain directions which are as follows:-

a) “Furnishing of information and also periodical reports with respect to the value of the assets and capital projects of the Board.

b) Replacement of all dead and defective meters by electronic meters from 31st March, 2002 onwards and reporting the status, as on 31st December, 2001 by 31st March, 2002.

c) To develop and implement a comprehensive public interaction programme through Consultative Committees, preparation, publication and advertisement of material helpful to various consumer interest groups and general public on various activities of the utility, dispute settlement mechanism, accidents, rights and obligations of the consumers etc. Accordingly, the Board was directed on September 22, 2001, to submit its plan for approval of the commission and implement the same by 31st March, 2002.

d) Submission of plans, short term and long term, by 31st March, 2002, for rationalization of existing manpower for improvements in efficiency through scientific engineering resources management, improving and updating the organization strategies and systems and skills of human resources for increased productivity. The Board in its affidavit of 3rd October, 2001 has agreed to comply and submit the above study by the above-mentioned date.

e) Submission of a plan by 31st March, 2002, for reducing loss, both technical and non-technical, together with relevant load flow studies and details of investment requirement to achieve the planned reductions. The Commission also observed in its interim order of 20th September, 2001 passed in the course of public hearing that investments must aim at reducing the T & D losses and better quality of supply and service to the consumers as it happened in the case of Palampur area which has mixed domestic and commercial loading. The strategy can be considered for adoption elsewhere also to produce similar results. The Board has confirmed and undertaken to complete this study by 31st March, 2002

f) To do a comparison of the capital costs of Malana Plant with the capital costs of HPSEB Plants and submit a report on this by 31st March, 2002.”

4. Be it noted, the commission issued the directions as a part of the tariff order and the said directions were contained in paragraphs 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.13. The Commission in paragraphs 7.31 and 7.32 had further stated as follows:-

“7.31 The Commission would monitor the progress in complying with these directions. The Commission accordingly directs the Board to furnish the information on milestones required in column 3 of the Annex (7.1) by December 31, 2001. Subsequent reports should be sent every quarter, providing the information required in columns 4, 5, 6 and 7. The first report shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 935

IMPORTANT POINT In absence of provision for transfer of pending proceedings under Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 to forum under Electricity Act, 2003 The High Court is competent to entertain appeal against Commission's order under 1998 Act.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of provision for transfer of pending proceedings under Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 to forum under Electricity Act, 2003 The High Court is competent to entertain appeal against Commission's order under 1998 Act.