NDLI: Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Electricity – Supply/distribution of electricity generated by Damodar Valley Corporation
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Electricity – Supply/distribution of electricity generated byDamodar Valley Corporation – Determination of tariff for –Interplay between the provisions of 1948 Act and the 2003 Act –Corporation notified its own tariff order in 2000 – 2003 Act cameinto force – Despite coming into force of the 2003 Act, theCorporation did not approach the Central Electricity RegulatoryCommission (CERC) for determination of the tariff chargeable by it– CERC issued tariff order – Challenged by Corporation beforeAppellate Tribunal – Tribunal inter alia held that provisions of the1948 Act which are not inconsistent with the 2003 Act will continueto hold the field so far as the determination of tariff is concerned –Propriety of – Held: Part IV of the 1948 Act not being inconsistentwith the provisions of the 2003 Act can be taken into account fordetermination of tariff – Such provisions of the 1948 Act will alsohave an overriding effect over the inconsistent provisions of the2004 Tariff Regulations – View taken by the Tribunal affirmed –Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditionsof Tariff) Regulations, 2004 – Damodar Valley Corporation Act,1948 – Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.61, 62 and 125.Electricity Act, 2003 – Fourth proviso to s.14 – Purport andeffect of – Plea of appellants that the application of a proviso mustalways be confined and understood within the parameters of theprovisions of the main section of which it is a part – Held: Fourthproviso to s.14 is clearly a substantive provision to lay downsomething more than what a proviso generally deals with – It neednot be understood to be confined only to the question of licensingwhich is dealt with by the main part of s.14 – Damodar ValleyCorporation Act, 1948 – ss.18 and 19.Electricity – CERC issued tariff order determining the tarifffor generation and transmission for the period from 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2009 by allowing a two-year transition period to theDamodar Valley Corporation i.e. from 1st April, 2004 to 31st March,2006 – Upheld by the Appellate Tribunal – Propriety of – Held:Corporation in addition to generation, transmission and distributionof electricity is statutorily required to undertake certain socialsecurity/beneficial measures like flood control, control of soil erosion,afforestation, navigation, promotion of public health etc. – Grantof transitory period can not be faulted with – Said part of the orderof the Tribunal not interfered with.Electricity Act, 2003 –s.79 – Held: Having regard to theprovisions of s.79 it is the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission(CERC) which would be the “Appropriate Commission” fordetermination of tariff inasmuch as the Damodar Valley Corporationis a Corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government– Said conclusion recorded by the Appellate Tribunal not interferedwith.Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 – Incorporation ofDamodar Valley Corporation under – Objects and reasons for –Discussed.Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms andConditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 – If have overriding effectover the parallel provisions in the 1948 Act – Plea of appellant that2004 Regulations must override the provisions of the 1948 Act asthe said regulations are statutory in character – Held: Not accepted –2004 Regulations though statutory in character are a species ofsubordinate delegated legislation – Damodar Valley CorporationAct, 1948.Interpretation of Statutes – External aids – Reports submittedby Parliamentary Standing Committee – Discussed.Electricity – ‘Depreciation rate’ and ‘sinking fund’ – Headsof tariff fixation – Determination of u/s.40 of the 1948 Act –Propriety of – Discussed – Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 –s.40 – Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms andConditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 – Regulation 20.Electricity – Tariff – Recovery towards Pension and GratuityFund – In reversal of the decision of the Central ElectricityRegulatory Commission permitting recovery from consumers to the extent of 60% and contribution of the balance 40% by the DamodarValley Corporation, Appellate Tribunal allowed entire fund to berecovered by way of tariff from the consumers – Propriety of – Held:Ex facie, there is no error in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunalin coming to the aforesaid conclusion so as to justify interference –Electricity Act, 2003 – s.125.Electricity – Cost relating to “other activities” of the DamodarValley Corporation to be recovered through tariff – Allowed byAppellate Tribunal – Propriety of – Plea of appellants that ss. 32and 33 of the 1948 Act are in direct conflict with ss. 41 and 51 ofthe 2003 Act and, therefore, recovery of cost incurred in “otherworks” undertaken by the Corporation through power tariff iswholly untenable – Held: “Other activities” of the Corporation arenot optional as contemplated u/ss.41/51 of the 2003 Act but aremandatorily cast by the 1948 Act which, being in the nature ofsocially beneficial measures, per se, do not entail earning of anyrevenue so as to require maintenance of separate accounts –Allowance of recovery of cost incurred in connection with “otheractivities” of the Corporation from the common fund generated bytariff chargeable from the consumers/customers of electricity ascontemplated by the provisions of the Act of 1948, therefore, do notcollide or is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act –Findings of Tribunal not interfered with – Electricity Act, 2003 –ss.41 and 51 – Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 – ss.32and 33.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 629
Petitioner	Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc.
Respondent	Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.
SCR	[2018] 10 S.C.R. 773
Judgement Date	2018-07-23
Case Number	971-973

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Chinmoy Moulik and Ors. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors.

Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Etc Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors

M/s. Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut Etc. Etc. Vs. U.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rithwik Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.

U.p. Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (p) Ltd. & Ors.

Hyderabad Engineering Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. A.p. State Electricity Board Etc. Etc.

Jagadamba Paper Industries (pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. Etc.

J.m.d. Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Chinmoy Moulik and Ors. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors.

Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Etc Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors

M/s. Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut Etc. Etc. Vs. U.p. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rithwik Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.

U.p. Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sant Steels & Alloys (p) Ltd. & Ors.

Hyderabad Engineering Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. A.p. State Electricity Board Etc. Etc.

Jagadamba Paper Industries (pvt.) Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. Etc.

J.m.d. Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Etc.