2012 (5) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Upholds Tariff Revision, Dismisses Appeals; Promissory Estoppel Inapplicable; Rs. 20,000 Costs Imposed.

The SC dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial question of law. It upheld the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's decision, confirming the ... Promissory estoppel - Limited duration incentive scheme and its withdrawal - Review jurisdiction under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act read with Order XLVII CPC - Scope of appellate review under Section 125 of the Electricity Act and Section 100 CPC - substantial question of law - Commencement of limitation period - communication of order v. pronouncement - No merger of original decree/order with an order dismissing a review petition - Concurrent findings of fact - finality and non-reopening in higher appealPromissory estoppel - Limited duration incentive scheme and its withdrawal - Whether the appellants were entitled to relief on the basis of promissory estoppel against discontinuance/modification of the incentive scheme - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the incentive scheme expressly carried a limited validity clause (till 31.3.2007 or until tariff revision) and that the scheme had been considered and modified after public notice. The Commission and the Tribunal further found no unequivocal representation that the old scheme would necessarily continue and no material to show that appellants had altered their position to their detriment by making investments in reliance on a continuing scheme. Applying established authorities on promissory estoppel, the Court found no perversity in those concurrent findings and concurrence of the Tribunal, and held that the doctrine was not attracted on the facts. [Paras 5, 6, 8, 9]Promissory estoppel does not apply; the incentive scheme was of limited validity and its modification/withdrawal did not entitle appellants to the relief sought.Scope of appellate review under Section 125 of the Electricity Act and Section 100 CPC - substantial question of law - Concurrent findings of fact - finality and non-reopening in higher appeal - Whether this Court could re-open concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Regulatory Commission and the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act - HELD THAT: - An appeal under Section 125 is governed by the parameters of Section 100 CPC and is maintainable only where a substantial question of law is involved. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commission (first instance) and the Tribunal (first appeal) cannot be re-opened in this Court on appeal under Section 125. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the material and therefore refused to entertain factual re-appraisal of the Commission's and Tribunal's conclusions. [Paras 7, 9]No interference with concurrent findings of fact; no substantial question of law is raised - appeal not maintainable on factual grounds.Commencement of limitation period - communication of order v. pronouncement - Whether limitation under Section 125 starts from date of pronouncement of the order or from its communication - HELD THAT: - Section 125 clearly provides that limitation begins from the date of communication of the decision or order. The Court noted that the Rules under the Act distinguish between notice of pronouncement and actual communication, and that transmission/communication of the order to parties (as addressed by Rule 98) constitutes the triggering communication for limitation purposes. The Court observed that an earlier decision suggesting pronouncement equals communication may require reconsideration but declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench as the appeals were dismissed on merits. [Paras 11]Limitation under Section 125 commences from communication of the order, not from its pronouncement.No merger of original decree/order with an order dismissing a review petition - Review jurisdiction under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act read with Order XLVII CPC - Whether an order dismissing a review petition merges with the original decree/order such that limitation for appeal runs from the date of the review order - HELD THAT: - The Court delineated three situational permutations: (i) review allowed and original order vacated and fresh order passed - then the fresh order is appealable; (ii) review allowed with modification - the modified order governs further appeal; and (iii) review dismissed - the original decree/order remains unaltered. In the third situation (the present case), dismissal of the review petition affirms the original order but does not cause a merger; therefore limitation for filing an appeal runs from the date of the original order. Time spent in diligently pursuing review may be considered when condoning delay, but such condonation does not imply merger of orders. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15]No merger where review petition is dismissed; limitation runs from the original order and dismissal of review does not reset the appeal period.Final Conclusion: Appeals dismissed on merits for lack of any substantial question of law and for concurrence of findings that the incentive scheme was time limited and promissory estoppel did not apply; limitation rules clarified (limitation commences on communication), and it was held that an order dismissing a review petition does not merge with the original order. Costs awarded to respondent. Issues Involved:1. Correctness of the order dated 23rd November, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.2. Revision of tariff by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission.3. Withdrawal and modification of the incentive scheme.4. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.5. Period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.6. Merger of orders in review petitions with original decrees.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Correctness of the order dated 23rd November, 2006, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity:The appeals challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which dismissed the appeals against the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission's order dated 8th June, 2006. The Tribunal noted no challenge to the tariff revision and upheld the Regulatory Commission's power of review under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal concurred with the Commission's view that the incentive scheme was valid only until 31st March, 2007, or until a new tariff order was issued.2. Revision of tariff by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission:The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission considered applications from three distribution companies (Discoms) for tariff revision effective from December 1, 2004. The Commission received and examined objections and suggestions from nearly 100 individuals and organizations. The revised tariff was determined to be effective from January 1, 2005, and remained in force until amended by a separate order.3. Withdrawal and modification of the incentive scheme:The Commission noted that the incentive scheme had a limited validity and its withdrawal did not violate the principles of promissory estoppel. The scheme's modification was publicized, and large industries and associations were heard. The Commission concluded that there was no error in withdrawing the old scheme and introducing a new one. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting no unequivocal representation for the scheme's continuation until 31st March, 2007.4. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:The Commission and the Tribunal rejected the application of promissory estoppel, stating that there was no unequivocal representation or promise for the scheme's continuation. The appellants failed to prove any detrimental change in their position based on the old scheme. The Commission cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting this view, including M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, and others.5. Period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003:The Supreme Court emphasized that an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is maintainable only on substantial questions of law. The period of limitation commences from the date of communication of the decision or order, not from the date of pronouncement. The Court noted that the decision in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission might require reconsideration, but it dismissed the appeals on merits, making further reference unnecessary.6. Merger of orders in review petitions with original decrees:The Court discussed different scenarios regarding review petitions. It concluded that if a review petition is dismissed without altering the original decree, there is no merger. The original decree must be challenged within the stipulated time. The Court referred to decisions in Manohar S/o Shankar Nale v. Jaipalsing S/o Shivalalsing Rajput and Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, affirming this legal position.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on merits, finding no substantial question of law. The respondent was awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 in each case, to be deposited in the SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within six weeks.