ARIJIT PASATAT, J. - (1.) These appeals involve an important question regarding jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (in short 'Appellate Tribunal'), New Delhi. The first judgment of the Appellate Tribunal is assailed in the case of appellant-Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent No. 1 -Gajendra Haldea a serving officer based in Delhi filed a petition before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short the 'CERC') purportedly under Section 52 read with Section 79(1)(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the 'Act') on 28.2.2006. The prayers inter alia were under : "(a) Direct GRIDCO to adhere to the maximum trading margin of 4 paise while entering into a contract for sale of power to any trading licensee in case such power is ultimately routed to a licensee outside the State of Orissa through an inter-State transmission system. (b) Direct GRIDCO to file appropriate returns in the prescribed Form-III of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Trading Licence and Other Related Matters) Regulations, 2004 in respect of each transaction of sale, where the electricity sold by it has been ultimately transferred to a licensee outside the State of Orissa using inter-State transmission system. (c) Direct GRIDCO not to sell electricity in the course of inter-State trade with a margin exceeding 4 paisa per unit and to modify any contract that allows it to retain a higher margin. (d) Direct GRIDCO not to invite bids with the intent of selling electricity in the course of inter-State trade with a margin exceeding 4 paisa per unit. (e) Exempt petitioner from the requirement of payment of the prescribed fee. (f) Pass such other and further orders and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." As is evident from paras 9 and 11 of the petition, the same was purportedly in public interest and was intended to save interests of consumers of electricity in the country. The appellant-Grid Corporation of Orissa filed objections inter alia taking the stand that petition filed by respondent No.1 Gajendra Haldea was misconceived and not maintainable in law and was liable to be rejected. By order dated 1.5.2006 CERC dismissed the petition and following findings were recorded : "In our considered view, GRIDCO though deemed to be an Electricity trader is an inter-state trader and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Orissa Commission. Therefore, the Trading margin of 4 paise/KW specified by the Commission in its Notification dated 23.1.2006 published in the Official Gazette on 27.1.2006 does not apply to GRIDCO." Challenging the order of CERC, respondent No.1- Gajendra Haldea carried the matter before the Appellate Tribunal in appeal purportedly filed under Section 111 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted reliefs as prayed for by respondent No.1.
(3.) The basic challenge in these appeals is that the petition filed by respondent No. 1-Gajendra Haldea was thoroughly misconceived because the appeal in terms of subsection (1) of Section 111 has to fulfill the following requirements : "111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under this Act (except under section 127) or an order made by the Appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity : Provided that any person appealing against the order of the adjudicating officer levying any penalty shall, while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty : Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of penalty. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission is received by the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. (3) On receipt of an appeal under subsection (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against. (4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission, as the case may be. (5) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within one hundred and eighty days from the date of receipt of the appeal : Provided that where any appeal could not be disposed of within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Appellate Tribunal shall record its reasons in writing for not disposing of the appeal within the said period. (6) The Appellate Tribunal may, for the purpose of examining the legality, propriety or correctness of Appropriate Commission under this Act, as the case may be, in relation to any proceeding, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of such proceedings and make such order in the case as it thinks fit.";