Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act | Appellate Authority Can Pass Orders Incidental To Matter Before It Including Interim Orders Unless Prohibited: High Court

The Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) has clarified that while deciding a matter, the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act 1962 (“the Act”) has the power to pass orders that are incidental to the matter including any interim orders. The Court said:

“In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Appellate Authority is completely erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is well settled principle that statutory authority/Appellate Authority having power to decide a matter has implicit jurisdiction and authority to pass such orders which are incidental in nature including the order of interim nature unless there is expressed or implied prohibition to pass interim order or incidental orders.”

A division bench led by Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava was hearing a petition filed against an order of the appellate authority under the Act which rejected an application seeking a stay on recovery. The petitioner was a company engaged in cement manufacturing. It was alleged by the petitioner that they were subjected to assessment regarding their liability for paying electricity duty. However, later it was subjected to a fresh reassessment, followed by a separate demand notice. The petitioner had submitted an application for a stay of recovery before the appellate authority under the Act which was rejected without considering the same on merits.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its jurisdiction based on an erroneous presumption that it did not have the power to grant a stay. This presumption of the appellate authority was challenged by the counsel.

On the other hand, the additional advocate general (“AAG”) argued that the petitioner should have availed an alternative remedy of review under Rule 11A of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Rules 1970 against the decision of the appellate authority. In view of this efficacious remedy, the petition was not maintainable.

The Court heard both sides and observed that generally, they would not have interfered with the decision of the appellate authority, however, the case was of exceptional nature.

“Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the stay application, had there been consideration of the merits of the application. In that case, certainly we would have relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision…Present case however is of exceptional nature for the reason that the Appellate Authority, on an erroneous assumption of law, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law which is jurisdictional defect and not mere error of fact or law. A perusal of the order shows that the Appellate Authority was of the view that it does not have power to stay, therefore, that was the main reason for rejecting the application for stay without due consideration of the case,” it said.

The Court held that the view taken by the appellate authority was erroneous and unsustainable in law. It was stated that appellate authority, having the power to decide a matter, had implicit jurisdiction to pass orders that were incidental, including interim orders unless there was expressed prohibition to that effect.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The Court observed that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its jurisdiction without considering the application on merits and directed the appellate authority to consider the application on its merits.

Title: M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

Click Here To Read/Download Order