2012 (5) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the period of limitation would start running from the date of pronouncement of the order or the date of communication thereof? Whether an order passed by the Tribunal in appeal merges with an order by which the Tribunal has dismissed an application for review of the said order was argued before us at some length?

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the order dated 23rd November, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
2. Revision of tariff by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission.
3. Withdrawal and modification of the incentive scheme.
4. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
5. Period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. Merger of orders in review petitions with original decrees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the order dated 23rd November, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity:
The appeals challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which dismissed the appeals against the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission's order dated 8th June, 2006. The Tribunal noted no challenge to the tariff revision and upheld the Regulatory Commission's power of review under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal concurred with the Commission's view that the incentive scheme was valid only until 31st March, 2007, or until a new tariff order was issued.

2. Revision of tariff by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission:
The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission considered applications from three distribution companies (Discoms) for tariff revision effective from December 1, 2004. The Commission received and examined objections and suggestions from nearly 100 individuals and organizations. The revised tariff was determined to be effective from January 1, 2005, and remained in force until amended by a separate order.

3. Withdrawal and modification of the incentive scheme:
The Commission noted that the incentive scheme had a limited validity and its withdrawal did not violate the principles of promissory estoppel. The scheme's modification was publicized, and large industries and associations were heard. The Commission concluded that there was no error in withdrawing the old scheme and introducing a new one. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting no unequivocal representation for the scheme's continuation until 31st March, 2007.

4. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Commission and the Tribunal rejected the application of promissory estoppel, stating that there was no unequivocal representation or promise for the scheme's continuation. The appellants failed to prove any detrimental change in their position based on the old scheme. The Commission cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting this view, including M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, and others.

5. Period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003:
The Supreme Court emphasized that an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is maintainable only on substantial questions of law. The period of limitation commences from the date of communication of the decision or order, not from the date of pronouncement. The Court noted that the decision in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission might require reconsideration, but it dismissed the appeals on merits, making further reference unnecessary.

6. Merger of orders in review petitions with original decrees:
The Court discussed different scenarios regarding review petitions. It concluded that if a review petition is dismissed without altering the original decree, there is no merger. The original decree must be challenged within the stipulated time. The Court referred to decisions in Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivalalsing Rajput and Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, affirming this legal position.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on merits, finding no substantial question of law. The respondent was awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 in each case, to be deposited in the SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within six weeks.

← Previous Next →