Back
Supreme Court Allows to Participate in Power Supply Dispute Proceedings
In a significant interim ruling, the has declined to interfere with the 's order permitting the NGO to participate in proceedings initiated by against and another company. The decision, delivered by a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, allows the NGO to bring relevant facts to light in an inquiry concerning alleged unauthorized supply and use of electricity from a .
The Dispute Over Captive Power Supply
The case originates from a (CPP) Agreement dated , between Amalgam Steels and JBVNL, renewed in and . Under this agreement, Amalgam Steels was to supply surplus power from its captive unit to a second company (petitioner no.2). In , complained to the , alleging that petitioner no.2 lacked valid "" status under , and sought action under . JBVNL subsequently issued and a massive demand of approximately ₹285 crore—₹176.74 crore against petitioner no.1 and ₹108.17 crore against petitioner no.2—for .
then filed a in the , seeking a declaration that the power supply was illegal and unauthorized. The High Court, while noting that the NGO's complaint seemed to reveal systemic issues in the inquiry, allowed to participate in JBVNL's proceedings. Aggrieved, the companies challenged this interim order in the Supreme Court.
Arguments: vs. Need for Transparency
Petitioners' Stand: Senior Counsel argued that was a "stranger" with no legal injury and thus lacked . He contended that the Electricity Act is a self-contained, , and the High Court could not judicially expand it by permitting a third party to participate in proceedings that are essentially contractual between JBVNL and the companies. He relied on precedents including and to argue that no unallocated regulatory residue exists outside the statutory framework.
Respondent's Stand: , representing , countered that the companies had evaded and that the NGO's six complaints had triggered the inquiry. He argued that the High Court's order was a necessary to ensure transparency and that no interference was warranted.
Court's Analysis: Upheld, Merits Reserved
The Supreme Court focused narrowly on the validity of the High Court's interim direction, avoiding a final pronouncement on
under the Electricity Act. The bench observed that the facts presented by
gave the High Court an impression that
"all is not well in the inquiry which is to be conducted by JBVNL."
The High Court had meticulously documented how action was not taken despite a long-standing complaint, leading to the conclusion that a third-party perspective was needed to bring full facts to JBVNL's notice.
The Court stated:
"We are sure that JBVNL will take its own decision on the basis of material to be placed before
after due deliberation and caution and shall not convert the direction for
to that of a Court or Tribunal but a means to collect information to enable it to initiate necessary action."
Emphasizing the limited scope of its review, the bench clarified that the High Court's could not be termed "" warranting interference under . However, it made clear that the participation of is not to be equated with in adjudication.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"We are of the opinion that facts presented before the High Court by respondent no. 1
seem to have given an impression to the High Court that all is not well in the inquiry which is to be conducted by JBVNL against respondent nos. 1 and 2."
-
"The High Court has in detail referred to the circumstances in which action was not taken against the petitioners despite a long-standing complaint by respondent nos. 1 and 2 at the right time."
-
"We are sure that JBVNL will take its own decision on the basis of material to be placed before
after due deliberation and caution..."
Decision and Implications
The Supreme Court disposed of the , declining to interfere with the High Court's interim order. The bench expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. At the final hearing, the High Court will consider all aspects, including the scope and ambit of in proceedings under the Electricity Act.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's willingness to allow public-spirited entities to assist regulatory inquiries where there is a indication of lapses. It also underscores that the Electricity Act's exhaustive nature does not automatically bar all forms of third-party participation, especially in PILs aimed at ensuring accountability. The ultimate question—whether such intervention is permissible as a matter of law—remains open for the High Court to decide.
