2008 (12) TMI 773 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the withdrawal of a circular letter dated 8.09.2000 by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Jurisdiction of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission to determine and modify tariffs.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Withdrawal of Circular Letter:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the withdrawal of a circular letter dated 8.09.2000 by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. The High Court had dismissed ten writ applications challenging this withdrawal. The appellants, upon obtaining special leave, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court referenced its decision in LML Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 128], which held that the doctrine of estoppel applies where a promise was made, and the consumers should not suffer due to a mistake by the Corporation.

2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies if a representation made by the Corporation led consumers to alter their position. The Court stated, "If by reason of the circular impugned before the High Court, the appellant was entitled to maintain a writ application; by reason of such representation, it did not waive its right." The Court further noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies in the realm of a statute, referencing cases like State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Another (2004) 6 SCC 465.

3. Jurisdiction of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission:
The Court reiterated that the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine and modify tariffs as per the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. The Court stated, "In view of the provisions of the 1999 Act as also the regulations framed thereunder, as the law stands now, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the Commission alone has the exclusive jurisdiction and even for the purpose of modification and/or alteration of tariff, the Commission must be approached." The Court dismissed the contention that Sub-section (6) of Section 24 of the 1999 Act empowers license holders to modify the tariff independently.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the decision in LML Ltd. (supra) does not require reconsideration. The appeal was allowed, directing the respondent to refund the entire amount within four weeks and bear the costs of the appellant throughout, with counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/-.