Supreme Court Criticises OERC For Challenging APTEL's Order, Says Quasi-Judicial Body Can't Be Aggrieved With Appellate Body's Order

The Supreme Court recently criticised the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) for challenging the orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) correcting the Commission's own order. Reminding the Commission that it was bound by the APTEL's order, the Supreme Court questioned the propriety of the Commission's appeal.

"..under Section 62, the Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers. There are appeals preferred by the Commission against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeals under Section 111 of the Electricity Act. The Appellate Tribunal in appeals has dealt with the legality and validity of the decisions of the Commission rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial power. In short, the Appellate Tribunal has tested the correctness of the orders of the Commission. The Commission is bound by the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we have serious doubt about the propriety and legality of the act of the Commission of preferring appeals against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeal by which its own orders have been corrected. The Commission cannot be the aggrieved party except possibly in one appeal where the issue was about the non-compliance by the Commission of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. If the Commission was exercising legislative functions, the position would have been different” a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S Oka said.

The Court was considering a batch of appeals against the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appeals before the Tribunal were against the orders fixing tariffs passed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, which was set up under Section 82 of the Electricity Act.

The Apex Court held that there was limited scope for interference in the matter at hand. The Court noted that Section 125 of the Electricity Act, which provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Appellate Tribunal limits the scope of the appeal to substantial questions of law as set out in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also noted that the function of Tariff fixation of the Commission under Section 62 of the Electricity Act is quasi-judicial. The Court also noted that both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal consist of bodies of experts.

“Therefore, when we consider the challenge to the decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal, we must keep in mind that the decisions are of a body of experts. This limitation is apart from the constraints of Section 125 of the Electricity Act of entertaining an appeal only on a substantial question of law. Therefore, this Court will normally be slow in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the Commission and/or by the Appellate Tribunal,” the Court said.

The Court allowed two appeals from the batch of appeals, to a limited extent but dismissed the rest of the appeals where the Commission had challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

Case Title: GRIDCO Ltd. V. Western Electricity Supply Company, Civil Appeal No.414 of 2007

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855

Click here to read/download judgment