Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6847 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 7605 of 2021) With Civil Appeal No. 6848 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 7607 of 2021)
Decided on : 15-05-2025
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 :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| INDEX |
| A. FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. IMPUGNED ORDER |
| C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
| D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS |
| E. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| F. ANALYSIS |
| i. Relevant Provisions of the Act, 2003 |
| ii. Relationship between Sections 79 and 178 of the Act, 2003 respectively |
| iii. Regulatory and adjudicatory functions of the CERC under Section 79 |
| iv. Grant of compensation for delay on the part of a party is a regulatory function |
| G. CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted.
2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed by this common judgment and order.
3. These appeals arise from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 25.02.2021, in Writ Petition No. 10845 of 2020 and Writ Petition No. 9136 of 2020 respectively, by which the High Court admitted the writ petitions filed by the Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited (“MPPTCL”) on the ground that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the “CERC”) had exercised powers beyond those vested in it as per the regulations under the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (the “Act, 2003”) in passing the orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 in Petition No. 311/TT/2018 and Petition No. 266/TT/2018 respectively.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The appellant herein is a Government of India Undertaking constituted for the purpose of undertaking inter-state transmission of electricity. In other words, the scope of work of the appellant includes inter alia, establishing and operating transmission lines, sub-stations and other transmission assets associated with inter-State transmission of power. These include ‘bays’ and inter-connecting ‘transformers’ at sub-stations to provide inter-connection facilities. By virtue of being a central transmission utility, the appellant is a deemed transmission licensee in terms of Section 38 of the Act, 2003. The respondent no. 1 herein is the State Transmission Utility and intra-state transmission licensee in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. The case on hand pertains to a dispute between the appellant and respondent no. 1 in respect of the implementation of the “Western Region System Strengthening Scheme XIV (WRSS-XIV) and Western Region Strengthening Scheme XVI (WRSS-XVI)” respectively by the appellant. The transmission assets were implemented by the appellant at the Indore sub-station upon the specific request of the respondent no. 1. In this regard, the parties planned and approved the WRSS-XIV in its 37th Standing Committee Meeting on Power System Planning of Western Region held on 05.09.2014 and WRSS-XVI in the 38th Standing Committee Meeting for the Western Region on 17.07.2015.
6. According to the agreement between the parties, the respondent no. 1 was required to construct and commission the intra-state tra
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....
Writ petitions challenging regulatory fixation of normative O&M charges as tariff component not maintainable due to statutory appeal to expert Appellate Tribunal under Electricity Act, absent jurisdi....
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.
Writ petitions under Article 226 against electricity regulatory commission orders fixing O&M charges not maintainable due to efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 111 of Electricity Act, ....
Regulatory commissions are exempt from GST as their functions do not constitute taxable supply of goods or services under the CGST Act.
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
