2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act dismissed as time-barred for being filed beyond 120-day limitation

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others

SC dismissed the appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act as barred by limitation, finding it was filed more than 120 days after communication of ... Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - after more than 120 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, that letter was received in the secretariat of the appellant on 21.6.2007. The appellant had come to know about the impugned order in July 2007 from another source i.e., respondent No.5, which had sent communication for payment of FLEE charges. The communication sent by respondent No.5 was received by the appellant on 17.7.2007. It is, thus, evident that on 21.6.2007 or at least on 17.7.2007, the appellant had come to know through proper channel that the order has been pronounced by the Tribunal in I.A. No.4/2007. It is not clear from the record whether the appellant had applied for certified copy or obtained the one through e-mail, but this much is evident that the appellant did obtain/receive a copy of order dated 17.5.2007. If that was not so, the appellant could not have filed appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act. The preparation of appeal, which bears the date 7.9.2007 is a clinching evidence of the fact that the appellant had not only become aware of the order of the Tribunal, but had obtained copy thereof. However, instead of filing appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of letter dated 7.6.2007 sent by the registry of the Tribunal or the communication sent by respondent No.5, the appellant chose to file appeal only on 24.12.2007 and that too despite the fact that the same was prepared on 7.9.2007. The appellant has not offered any tangible explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed for more than three and half months after its preparation. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appeal has been filed after more than 120 days from the date of communication of the Tribunal's order and, as such, the same cannot be entertained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. Communication of the Tribunal's order for the purpose of limitation under Section 125 of the Electricity Act.3. Timeliness and justification for the delay in filing the appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:The primary issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be invoked to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 beyond the prescribed period of 120 days. The court referred to the scheme and objective of the Electricity Act, emphasizing that it is a 'self-contained comprehensive legislation' designed to ensure the expeditious resolution of disputes. The court noted that Section 125 of the Electricity Act allows an appeal to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the Tribunal's order, with a further extension of 60 days if sufficient cause is shown, thus making the outer limit for filing an appeal 120 days. The court held that invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act would defeat the legislative intent of providing a special limitation period, rendering the proviso to Section 125 nugatory. The court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to extend the period for filing an appeal beyond 120 days.2. Communication of the Tribunal's Order:The court examined what constitutes 'communication' of the Tribunal's order for the purpose of Section 125 of the Electricity Act. The court interpreted the term 'communication' contextually, considering the relevant rules under the Electricity Act. Rule 94(2) of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Procedure, Form, Fee, and Record of Proceedings) Rules, 2007 mandates that the date for pronouncement of a reserved order must be notified in the cause list, which serves as valid notice. Rule 98(2) requires the Deputy Registrar to ensure compliance with the rules and facilitate the communication of the order to the parties. The court held that once the order is pronounced and the parties are informed (either through the cause list or other means like email), the order is deemed communicated, and the limitation period commences from that date.3. Timeliness and Justification for Delay:The appellant filed the appeal on 24.12.2007, along with an application for condonation of a 160-day delay. The appellant argued that it was unaware of the Tribunal's order until July 2007 due to a lack of intimation from its counsel and procedural delays. However, the court found that the Tribunal's order was communicated to the appellant via a letter dated 7.6.2007, received on 21.6.2007. Additionally, the appellant became aware of the order through respondent No.5's communication in July 2007. Despite this, the appellant filed the appeal only on 24.12.2007, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days. The court held that the appeal was filed late and could not be entertained.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to extend the limitation period for appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act beyond 120 days. The court emphasized that the communication of the Tribunal's order, as per the relevant rules, triggered the limitation period, and the appellant failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame.