APTEL JUDGMENTS

Western Electricity Supply v. Odisha Electricity Regulatory:

In this case, APTEL has made expunged observations in an Impugned order, but the said impugned
order has not been set aside by the tribunal. It has been observed by the Tribunal that, in the ultimate
analysis, there was no hesitation in holding that the impugned order revoking the Appellants' licences
and appointing Administrator is legal. No substantial point was being raised before the court, which
could persuade it to set aside the impugned order. 

An overall reading of the show cause notice and the impugned order and taking into account the
chequered history of this case, we feel that on the substratum of the case, there is total consistency.
In any case, even if findings on such issues are obliterated, the remaining grounds can form a firm
basis for the impugned order. 1

Uttar Pradesh Sugar Mills Co-Gen v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity :

In this case, the Appellants have prayed that the impugned order to be set aside which has directed
that CRE Regulations 2014 to be amended. Their case is that the State Commission has not followed
the correct procedure and hence its order is liable to be set aside. The State Commission cannot
amend a regulation by a judicial order.

However, The Respondents in this case on the other hand have urge that under the garb of assailing
the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has not followed the correct procedure,
the Appellants are trying to get the amendment made to the regulations set aside. They are in effect
seeking setting aside of the amended regulation which this Tribunal cannot do.

It is sought to be set aside on the ground that proper procedure was not followed or the manner of
exercise of power was not proper. If this Tribunal sets aside the impugned order the amendment
will be set aside. To set aside the amendment this Tribunal will have to come to a conclusion that
the amendment was illegal as proper procedure was not followed. That would amount to undertaking
judicial review of the amendment which is a part of CRE Regulations 2014. 2

1
Western Electricity Supply v. Odisha Electricity Regulatory, APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2015, August (2017)
2
Uttar Pradesh Sugar Mills Co-Gen v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity, Appeal No. 125 of 2015Appeal No. 125 of 2015.
APTEL has observed in this case that- Examined from any angle, “we are of the opinion that judicial
review of the amended regulation is inevitable. Pertinently, while the Appellants submit that the
amendment has not come into effect, the Respondents submit that it has been given effect to. If we
set aside the impugned order and consequently the amendment, we will have to return a finding that
it is not properly framed.” 3

M/S Greenko Budhil Hydro Power v. Central Electricity Regulatory:

The Appellant in this case has submitted that, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the
present Appeal and set aside the Impugned Order in terms of the grounds raised Further, it has been
submitted that, the observations made in the impugned Order by the Central Electricity Regulatory.

Thus, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Tribunal that, it is needless to clarify that the observations
made in the Impugned Order, passed by the first Respondent/CERC is expunged in view of the fair
submissions made by the learned counsel for the second Respondent/PGCIL.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. v. Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission:

In this case, The Appellant has submitted the Hon’ble Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and
direct the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to follow the requirement as mentioned in
Section 178(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also follow the principles of Natural Justice.

However, the Hon’ble Tribunal has observed that- “merely because the required procedures have not
been followed while framing the Regulations, this Tribunal cannot set aside those Regulations.” The
exercise of the power while passing this impugned order was not under adjudicatory power of the
Central Commission but was under regulatory power.

It has been held by the Tribunal in this case that Tribunal, under Section 111 of the Act cannot
interfere with the orders passed by the exercise of the Regulatory Powers vested with the Central
Commission under Sections 61 and 178 of Electricity Act 2003. It has been concluded by the
APTEL, that the impugned order is not as a result of the exercise of the normal Adjudicatory power
but the same is the outcome of the exercise of the Regulatory power. Hence, the appeal has not been
maintainable.

3
Supra Note 2