https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168136 Consumer participation under the 1998 tariff framework was recognised as a controlled statutory right, and the High Court was wrong to deny hearing and representation. The State Commission, not the licensee, was the tariff-determining authority, and Schedule VI of the 1948 Act did not operate as the sole code; the later statute required a broader, consumer-oriented assessment. In statutory appeal, the High Court had to show restraint and could interfere with expert tariff findings only for perversity, lack of evidence, or legal error. The Commission was not strictly bound by the CEA's cost figures or audited accounts, while cross-subsidy could not be continued contrary to the statute and ad hoc tariff fixation for 2002-03 lacked material basis. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168136 Consumer participation under the 1998 tariff framework was recognised as a controlled statutory right, and the High Court was wrong to deny hearing and representation. The State Commission, not the licensee, was the tariff-determining authority, and Schedule VI of the 1948 Act did not operate as the sole code; the later statute required a broader, consumer-oriented assessment. In statutory appeal, the High Court had to show restraint and could interfere with expert tariff findings only for perversity, lack of evidence, or legal error. The Commission was not strictly bound by the CEA's cost figures or audited accounts, while cross-subsidy could not be continued contrary to the statute and ad hoc tariff fixation for 2002-03 lacked material basis. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168136