Recorded concession in regulatory order cannot be contradicted on appeal without specific pleading and proper foundation.

A concession recorded in a regulatory authority's order cannot later be contradicted in appeal unless first corrected or clarified before the same authority. Where allottees had restricted their claim after the matter was explained to them, they could not seek relief beyond that recorded concession by appeal alone. An appellate forum also cannot entertain an oral plea that no concession was made when the appeal memo does not specifically plead that the record is erroneous or unsupported. The resulting appellate order was treated as unsustainable, and the authority's original order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether allottees who had accepted a concession recorded in the regulatory authority's order could challenge that order in appeal and seek relief beyond the concession; (ii) Whether the appellate tribunal could entertain an oral plea that no such concession had been made when the appeal memo did not specifically raise that ground.

Issue (i): Whether allottees who had accepted a concession recorded in the regulatory authority's order could challenge that order in appeal and seek relief beyond the concession.

Analysis: The regulatory authority's order recorded that the allottees first sought interest on the entire amount and thereafter, after the matter was explained to them, restricted their demand to interest only on amounts collected after implementation of the Act. Once such a concession stood recorded in the judicial order, the proper course was to seek correction or clarification before the same authority. The recorded statement of what transpired before the authority could not be contradicted later in appeal by an oral assertion that no concession had been made.

Conclusion: The allottees could not seek relief beyond the concession recorded in the regulatory authority's order by filing an appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate tribunal could entertain an oral plea that no such concession had been made when the appeal memo did not specifically raise that ground.

Analysis: The appeal memo did not contain a clear pleading that the concession recorded in the regulatory authority's order was erroneous or that no such concession had been made. In the absence of such a pleading, the appellate tribunal could not have acted on an oral plea raised for the first time during hearing. The tribunal's approach in disbelieving the recorded concession without a foundational pleading was held to be unsustainable and jurisdictionally erroneous.

Conclusion: The appellate tribunal could not entertain the oral plea that no concession had been made.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the regulatory authority's order restored and the appeal allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A concession recorded in a judicial order is conclusive unless corrected before the same authority, and a party cannot in appeal contradict that record without a specific pleading and proper foundation.

---