Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited – Respondent
What is the scope of the CERC’s power to regulate inter-state transmission of electricity and determine tariff for the same under clauses (c) and (d) of Section 79 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003? What is the nature of the CERC's function when granting compensation for delay in commissioning of transmission assets? What are the conditions under which a writ petition can be entertained by the High Court despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003?
Key Points: - The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) possesses both regulatory and adjudicatory powers under the Electricity Act, 2003 (!) . - The High Court erred in admitting the writ petition filed by the respondent, as the CERC's order granting liberty to claim compensation was within its regulatory powers (!) . - The CERC's power to regulate inter-state transmission and determine tariff under Section 79(1) is distinct from its power to make regulations under Section 178 (!) (!) . - The grant of compensation for delay is considered a regulatory function, aimed at filling regulatory gaps when specific regulations are absent (!) (!) . - The CERC can exercise its regulatory powers under Section 79(1) even in the absence of specific regulations under Section 178 (!) . - The determination of tariff by the CERC under Section 62 is an adjudicatory function, but other reliefs granted under Section 79(1) can be regulatory (!) (!) . - The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition as the challenge was to the exercise of jurisdiction by the CERC, for which an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Act was available (!) (!) . - The CERC's order allowing the appellant to claim compensation for the delay was a consequence of a regulatory lacuna and not a contravention of natural justice (!) . - The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petitions (!) . - The Supreme Court clarified that it did not consider the merits of whether the liability for transmission charges could be imposed on the respondent, leaving that to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) if an appeal is preferred (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding cerc's jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. appellant's submission on alternative remedies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. respondent's opposition to cerc's orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. issues for determination related to cerc's powers. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. cerc's dual functions discussed. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. nature of regulatory and adjudicatory functions. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 8. compensation for delay as a regulatory function. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. examination of orders for regulatory gaps. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. clarification of cerc's authority in specific cases. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 11. legal clarity on regulatory power and jurisdiction. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. conclusion on the high court's error. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 13. final conclusions and directions. (Para 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
1. Leave granted.
3. These appeals arise from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench date
The CERC possesses both regulatory and adjudicatory powers under the Electricity Act, allowing it to impose compensation for delays while retaining the framework under which such determinations are m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation and enforcement of Regulation 17 of the CERC Tariff Regulations fall within the adjudicatory powers of the Central Electric....
The interpretation of tariff regulations concerning power supply and agreements lies exclusively with the regulatory commission, and disputes must be adjudicated by it rather than the High Court.
Regulatory functions performed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission do not constitute a taxable supply under GST, as they are not conducted in the course of business.
Regulatory commissions are exempt from GST as their functions do not constitute taxable supply of goods or services under the CGST Act.
The CERC has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes involving generating companies or transmission licensees in regard to matters connected with clauses (a) to (d) of Section 79(1). Clause (b) obvi....
Point of law: Commission cannot be kept in the dark when the effect is amendment to the PPA.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
