Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Allain Duhangan Hydro Power Ltd. vs Everest Power Pvt. Ltd. . on 26 April, 2017
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1795 OF 2013
ALLAIN DUHANGAN HYDRO POWER LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
EVEREST POWER PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 412/2013
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1795/2013
O R D E R
1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi (for short the 'Appellate Tribunal') in which it has confirmed the judgment dated 01.06.2011 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the 'Central Commission') which has held that in view of the fact that inter-State transmission of electricity is involved, the Central Commission would have jurisdiction to proceed further with the matter under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2) We have heard Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Signature Not Verified
Nobody has Digitally signed by R.NATARAJAN Date: 2017.04.29 12:31:59 IST argued on behalf of the appellants, despite the fact that Reason: the matter has been passed over once and this is the second call. We have also heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned 2 senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener, Mr. Aditya Dhawan, learned counsel for Respondent No.7 and Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel for the Union of India.
3) Mr. Tripathi has adverted to a concurrent finding of fact of both the Central Commission and the Appellate Tribunal. The Commission in its judgment dated 01.06.2011 held on facts as follows:-
“16. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and Respondent No.1. There is no doubt that as per the Master Plan envisaged by the Central Electricity Authority, the transmission line is required to wheel the power of other generators in the region till the Nalagarh sub-station of Power Grid. Since, the petitioner has been permitted by Ministry of Power, Government of India in its sanction letter under section 68 of the Act to wheel its power by LILO of one circuit of Allain Duhangan-Nalagarh transmission line till the Nalagarh sub-station of Power Grid, the portion of the transmission line to be used by EPPL becomes a part of the inter-State transmission system as “inter-State transmission system” under 2(36) of the 2003 Act which includes conveyance within the State which is incidental to inter-State transmission of electricity. Moreover, permission to EPPL in the sanction letter under section 68 of the Act to use the transmission line of ADHPL is deemed to be read into the sanction letter to ADHPL under section 68 of the Act and such permission to ADHPL is conditional to wheeling the power of other generators in the region whose generating 3 stations were included in the planning process of CTU and CEA. Since the subject transmission line has been planned to evacuate power from the region for injection into the sub-station of Power Grid at Nalagarh, the transmission line is incidental to inter-State transmission system. The Commission which has been vested with the responsibility to regulate inter-State transmission has the jurisdiction to issue directions under section 79(1)(c) of the Act to regulate transmission on the subject transmission line.”
4) This was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in para 35 as follows:-
“35. The definition of the inter-State transmission system under Section 2(36)(ii) includes the conveyance of electricity across the territory of an intervening State as well as within the State which is incidental to such inter-state transmission of electricity. In the present case as discussed in the previous paragraphs, Allain Dunhangan – Nalagarh line after loop-in-loop-out at Chhaur sub-station of the Respondent No.1 becomes the system incidental to inter-State transmission of electricity from Malana II station of the Respondent No.1. Therefore, the Central Commission shall have jurisdiction to regulate the transmission of electricity on Allain Dunhangan – Nalagarh line after loop-in-loop-out of one of the circuits at Chhaur sub-station.” 4
5) In view of the concurrent finding of fact taking into account Section 2(36)(ii), we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal and hence the same is upheld. We may only indicate that the said judgment has remanded the matter to the Central Commission to decide the matter on merits having held that it has jurisdiction to proceed further.
6) The appeal is dismissed. Needles to say, interim order, stands vacated.
7) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the contempt petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
.......................... J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) .......................... J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) New Delhi;
April 26, 2017.
5
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1795/2013
ALLAIN DUHANGAN HYDRO POWER LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
EVEREST POWER PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and permission to place addl. documents on record and ex-parte stay and directions and impleadment and permission to file additional documents and intervention and directions and office report) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 412/2013 In C.A. No. 1795/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 26/04/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Appellant(s) Mr. Atul Vinod, Adv.
Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Ankit Saini, Adv.
Mishika Bajai, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jafar Alam, Adv.
Mr. Phaguni Lal, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar – I, AOR Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR 6 Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv.
Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Needles to say, interim order, stands vacated.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the contempt petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Pending applications filed in the matter stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)