Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 30) has strongly criticised the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) for reviewing its earlier order in violation of a binding Supreme Court judgment, observing that the Tribunal had committed a “blatant breach of judicial discipline” and violated Article 141 of the Constitution.

“We cannot but observe that the Tribunal has gone haywire; we are apologetic for the expression but we find no substitute to express our angst in allowing the review, that too, when the very same issue, for the earlier years, was settled by this Court…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Tribunal's review order passed in defiance of its original 2019 judgment, which had allowed the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) to recover contributions to its Sinking Fund through electricity tariffs.

The Court also imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Maithan Alloys Limited, which had sought the review, and ₹1.5 lakh on Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which had supported the review order.

The dispute concerned DVC's tariff determination for 2009–2014. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) permitted DVC to treat contributions to its Sinking Fund, maintained to redeem bonds, as an expenditure recoverable through electricity tariffs.

In 2019, APTEL upheld the decision, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation (2018). However, in 2024, while allowing a review petition filed by Maithan Alloys after more than five years, the Tribunal held that permitting both depreciation on assets created using bond proceeds and Sinking Fund contributions would amount to double benefit, prompting the DVC to move to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the DVC's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that the APTEL acted in derogation of the principle of judicial disciple, while ignoring the binding precedent of the Supreme Court. Further, the Court found that even testing on the pedestal of the review jurisdiction of the tribunal, the review exercise by the APTEL doesn't fall under any of the principles applicable for permitting the review by a tribunal. According to the Court, an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and cannot require lengthy reasoning or detailed examination.

“We find the review to be clearly illegal, totally misplaced and blatantly in breach of the principles of judicial discipline. We also have to emphasize the travesty insofar as violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Our judicial system with the hierarchy of Courts thrives on the sanctity of the decisions of the appellate, revisional and supervisory jurisdictions to be given due weightage. As far as Article 141 is concerned it's a Constitutional imprimatur which ensures the decisions of the highest court of the land to be followed, without which there will be mayhem.”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed with costs.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Kanika Chugh, Adv. Mr. Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nihal Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Priya Dhankhar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja- 2868, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Samajdar, Adv. Mr. Atul Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Yadav- 2121, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv.

Tags: