CESE LTD Vs. GAJENDRA HALDEA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as to the Tribunal). The appeal has been filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the Act).

(2.) The primary stand of the appellant is that though the Tribunal accepted that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (in short the Regulatory Commission) did not have any power to determine tariff for trading, it invoked Sections 60 and 66 of the Act to direct all Regulatory Commissions to fix trading margins as if it involved tariff determination. Stand of the appellant is that only appropriate Regulatory Commission can invoke provisions of Section 60 upon arriving at a finding that a particu lar licensee or generator had conducted himself in the specified manner which has an adverse effect on competition in the electricity industry. According to the Appellant the Tribunal issued directions on assumptions and presumptions without any adjudication on tests laid down in Section 60 of the Act. In essence, the stand is that the Tribunal is not empowered to determine tariff in exercise of its revisional super visory powers under Section 121 of the Act. It was pointed out that the exercise of power under Section 121 of the Act was not permissible because respondent No.1-Gajendra Haldea had neither initiated any proceedings before the concerned Regu latory Commission and had also not made any grievance relating to excessive exer cise or non exercise of jurisdiction by such Regulatory Commission. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. Gajendra Haldea and Ors. (2008) 11 SCALE 313) holding that respon dent-Gajendra Haldea cannot be treated as a person aggrieved under the Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 on the other hand Suppl orted the judgment and submitted that Grid Corporations case (supra) has no application to the facts of the case.