Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Central Electricity Regulatory ... vs M/S Techno Electric And Engineering ... on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 54295430 OF 2015
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S TECHNO ELECTRIC AND
ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
The present appeals are directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 28th November, 2014 filed at the instance of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
While admitting the appeals, this Court left the question of limitation open to be considered at the later stage and granted interim protection to the appellant as it reveals from the order dated 9 th July, 2015.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the plea of limitation as being raised before us for consideration.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed byUnder Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003(hereinafter being Ashwani Kumar Date: 2023.02.23 16:54:15 IST Reason: referred to as the “Act 2003”), any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may file an appeal to this Court.
2Section 125 of the Act, 2003 is extracted as under: “125. Appeal to Supreme Court. Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):
Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. “ This provision clearly mandates that appeal is to be preferred before this Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or Order of the Appellate Tribunal and if prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, may be allowed to file within a further period but not exceeding sixty days.
At the same time, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 176 and clauses (q), (t) and (z) of subsection (2) of Section 176 of the Act, 2003 and in supersession of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity(Form, Verification and Fee for Filing an Appeal) Rules, 2004, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity(Procedure, Form, Fee and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 2007”) were framed. Rules 94 and 98 of Chapter XIV relevant for the purpose are extracted hereunder: “94. Pronouncement of order. (1) The Bench shall as far as possible pronounce the order immediately after the hearing is con cluded.3
(2) When the orders are reserved, the date for pronouncement of order shall be notified in the cause list which shall be a valid no tice of intimation of pronouncement".
(3) Reading of the operative portion of the order in the open court shall be deemed to be pronouncement of the order.
(4) Any order reserved by a Circuit Bench of the Tribunal may also be pronounced at the principal place of sitting of the Bench in one of the aforesaid modes as exigencies of the situation require.
98. Transmission of order by the Court Master. (1) The Court Master shall immediately on pronouncement of order, transmit the order with the case file to the Deputy Registrar.
(2) On receipt of the order from the Court Master, the Deputy Registrar shall after due scrutiny, satisfy himself that the provisions of these rules have been duly compiled with and in token thereof affix his initials with date on the outer cover of the order. The Deputy Registrar shall thereafter cause to transmit the case file and the order to the Registry for taking steps to prepare copies and their communication to the parties.” Rule 94 clearly envisages that the cases where orders are reserved and the date of pronouncement of order is properly notified in the cause list shall be considered a valid intimation of notice of pronouncement of the order.
At the same time, the effect of Rule 98 is only for the purpose of procedural compliance after pronouncement of the Order by the Court Master/Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, but will not be relevant to determine the trigger point for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.
In the facts and circumstance of the case, we find that the judgment was reserved in the instant case and it is not disputed that 4 the date of pronouncement was not properly notified to the parties.
The judgment was finally pronounced by the Tribunal on 28 th November, 2014. The appeal was preferred by the appellant on 27 th May, 2015. Indisputedly, it was beyond the period of one hundred and twenty days and the appeal was indeed barred by limitation.
The defence of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the letter was sent from the Office of the Tribunal on 3 rd March, 2015. If that is to be taken as a trigger point, the appeal was preferred on 27th May, 2015, it was within a period of one hundred and twenty days and is within limitation and deserves to be heard on merits.
After we have taken into consideration the submissions of the parties and the scheme of the Act and the rules made thereunder, we are of the view that once the date of pronouncement of Order has been duly notified in the cause list, that shall be considered to be a valid notice of intimation of pronouncement.
So far as Rule 98 of which the reference has been made, it is for the Registry to take steps to prepare the copies and their communication to the parties for the purpose of transmission of Order but may not be relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation for filing of appeal under Section 125 of the Act, 2003 as has been considered by this Court in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board 5 Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others 1 wherein it has been held as under: “25. Section 125 lays down that any person aggrieved by any deci sion or order of the Tribunal can file an appeal to this Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal. Proviso to Section 125 empowers this Court to enter tain an appeal filed within a further period of 60 days if it is satis fied that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the initial period of 60 days. This shows that the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals under Sections 111(2) and 125 is sub stantially different from the period prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing suits, etc. The use of the expression “within a further period of not exceeding 60 days” in the proviso to Section 125 makes it clear that the outer limit for filing an appeal is 120 days. There is no provision in the Act under which this Court can enter tain an appeal filed against the decision or order of the Tribunal af ter more than 120 days.
26. The object underlying establishment of a special adjudicatory forum i.e. the Tribunal to deal with the grievance of any person who may be aggrieved by an order of an adjudicating officer or by an appropriate Commission with a provision for further appeal to this Court and prescription of special limitation for filing appeals under Sections 111 and 125 is to ensure that disputes emanating from the operation and implementation of different provisions of the Electricity Act are expeditiously decided by an expert body and no court, except this Court, may entertain challenge to the deci sion or order of the Tribunal. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts (Section 145) qua an order made by an adjudicating officer is also a pointer in that direction.
32. In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by this Court for entertaining an appeal filed against the decision or order of the Tribunal beyond the period of 120 days specified in Section 125 of the Electricity Act and its proviso. Any interpretation of Section 125 of the Elec tricity Act which may attract the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29(2) thereof will defeat the object of the legislation, namely, to provide special limitation for filing an appeal against the decision or order of the Tribunal and proviso to Section 125 will become nugatory.
34. The next question which requires consideration is as to what is the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal 1 2010(5) SCC 23 6 for the purpose of Section 125 of the Electricity Act. The word “communication” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the same deserves to be interpreted by applying the rule of contextual interpretation and keeping in view the language of the relevant provisions.
35. Rule 94(1) of the Rules lays down that the Bench of the Tri bunal which hears an application or petition shall pronounce the order immediately after conclusion of the hearing. Rule 94(2) deals with a situation where the order is reserved. In that event, the date for pronouncement of order is required to be notified in the cause list and the same is treated as a notice of intimation of pronounce ment.
36. Rule 98(1) casts a duty upon the Court Master to immediately after pronouncement transmit the order along with the case file to the Deputy Registrar. In terms of Rule 98(2), the Deputy Registrar is required to scrutinise the file, satisfy himself that the provisions of the Rules have been complied with and thereafter, send the case file to the Registry for taking steps to prepare copies of the order and their communication to the parties. If Rule 98(2) is read in iso lation, one may get an impression that the Registry of the Tribunal is dutybound to send copies of the order to the parties and the or der will be deemed to have been communicated on the date of re ceipt thereof, but if the same is read in conjunction with Section 125 of the Electricity Act, which enables any aggrieved party to file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal, Rule 94(2) which postulates noti fication of the date of pronouncement of the order in the causelist and Rule 106 under which the Tribunal can allow filing of an ap peal or petition or application through electronic media and pro vide for rectification of the defects by email or net, it becomes clear that once the factum of pronouncement of the order by the Tribunal is made known to the parties and they are given opportu nity to obtain a copy thereof through email, etc. the order will be deemed to have been communicated to the parties and the period of 60 days specified in the main part of Section 125 will commence from that date.
37. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. As mentioned above, Rule 94(2) requires that when the order is re served, the date of pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list and that shall be a valid notice of pronouncement of the order. The counsel appearing for the parties are supposed to take cog nizance of the causelist in which the case is shown for pronounce ment. If title of the case and name of the counsel is printed in the causelist, the same will be deemed as a notice regarding pro nouncement of order. Once the order is pronounced after being 7 shown in the causelist with the title of the case and name of the counsel, the same will be deemed to have been communicated to the parties and they can obtain a copy through email or by filing an application for a certified copy.” It is brought to our notice that later this Court in DSR Steel(Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2 has shown certain doubts on the view expressed by this Court in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board(supra).
After we have gone through the records, we concur with the view expressed by this Court in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board(supra).
Accordingly, we hold that the appeals were not preferred within the period of limitation and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….................J. [AJAY RASTOGI] ……….....................J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 22, 2023.
2 2012(6) SCC 782
8
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 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). 5429-5430/2015
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S TECHNO ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING
COMPANY LTD & ORS. Respondent(s)
([IA-99402/19 MENTIONED]
IA No. 99402/2019 - VACATING STAY)
Date : 22-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Appellant(s) Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.
Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Krishnan, AOR Mr. Ankur Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, AOR Mr. Amit Kapur, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Jain, Adv.
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Nagangom, Adv.
Mr. Anand K. Ganesan, Adv.
Ms. Swapna Seshari, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR Ms. Ashabari Thakur, Adv.
9UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(NAND KISHORE) (ASHWANI KUMAR)
BRANCH OFFICER ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS
(Signed order is placed on the file)