2013 (10) TMI 1462 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the appeal after the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Authority of the Commission to issue directions and impose penalties after fixing the tariff.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, even after the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Supreme Court affirmed that the right of appeal is a vested right and such a right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding. The Court noted that the 2003 Act did not expressly or by necessary implication take away the vested right of appeal. The Court cited several precedents, including Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and others, to support the principle that the forum of appeal is a substantive right and not merely procedural. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to retain jurisdiction was flawless.

Authority of the Commission:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (the "Commission") had the authority to issue directions and impose penalties after fixing the tariff. The High Court had held that the Commission became "functus officio" after fixing the tariff and could not issue further directions or impose penalties. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the Commission had the authority under Section 22(1)(d) of the 1998 Act to promote competition, efficiency, and economy in the activities of the electricity industry. The Court interpreted the wide language of Section 22(1)(d) to include the power to issue directions related to tariff fixation and associated concepts. However, the Court found that the Board had substantially complied with the directions and thus, the imposition of a penalty was not justified.

The appeals were disposed of with the Supreme Court granting liberty to the Commission to proceed under the provisions of the 2003 Act if necessary, but clarifying that the Commission could not take any action arising out of its earlier orders.