Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 626
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5857-5858 OF 2011
POWERGRID COPORATION OF
INDIA LIMITED APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This order will dispose of both Civil Appeal Nos. 5857
and 5858 of 2011.
Signature Not Verified
2. Since both the civil appeals filed by the appellant
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2025.05.05
17:18:51 IST
Reason:
under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 arise out of the
1
common order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity in Appeal Nos. 91-92 of 2009 with the
issue being inter-related and between the same parties, both
the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by
this common order.
3. Appellant in this case is Powergrid Corporation of
India Limited.
4. In Appeal No. 91 of 2009, the challenge made was to
the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission in Petition No. 68 of 2008. In Appeal No.
92 of 2009, challenge made was to the order dated 03.02.2009
passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in
Petition No. 80/2008. Both Appeal Nos. 91 and 92 of 2009 were
dismissed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
vide the order dated 23.03.2011 (impugned order).
5. Hence, the two appeals.
6. This Court by order dated 01.08.2011 had issued
notice.
2
7. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
8. Appellant Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (for
short ‘Powergrid’) is a public sector undertaking of the
Government of India. It is mainly engaged in the business
of transmission of power through its transmission network.
It discharges its statutory functions under the Electricity Act,
2003 and transmits electricity throughout the country. On the
other hand, respondent No. 1 is the Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission. It is a statutory body established
under the provisions of the erstwhile Electricity Regulatory
Commission Act, 1998 (since repealed). After coming into force
of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (‘CERC’ for short) began to exercise its functions
under the said statute.
9. At the relevant point of time, appellant was a central
transmission utility responsible for establishing transmission
assets of Inter-State Transmission Systems (‘ISTS’ for short)
dealing with planning and transmission of electricity. Amongst
others, appellant owned and operated two transmission
3
systems in the northern region: Rihand I and Rihand II. Rihand
I comprises of Mandola and Ballabgarh sub-stations whereas
Rihand II comprises of Kaithal, Mainpuri and Abdullapur sub-
stations. Rihand I had three Inter-connecting Transformers
(‘ICT’ for short): one at Ballabgarh and two at Mandola. Rihand
II had four ICTs: two at Kaithal and two at Mainpuri.
10. Between 28.04.2006 and 09.05.2006, all the three
transformers in the Rihand I transmission system failed and
broke down. In fact, those were burnt and damaged due to
internal faults. Considering that it was peak summer season
with high anticipated load demand in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi, the transformers were required to be replaced
immediately. According to the appellant, procurement of new
transformers would have taken a long time. Therefore, it was
decided to temporarily take out one transformer each from
Mainpuri and Kaithal sub-stations and to divert the same to
Ballabgarh and Mandola. It was also decided to divert one
transformer which was procured for Bahadurgarh sub-station
4
to Mandola as commissioning at Bahadurgarh was scheduled
later.
11. Accordingly, appellant restored the transformers at
Ballabgarh and Mandola during the period from 29.05.2006 to
19.06.2006. The ICTs that were taken out from Mainpuri and
Kaithal were restored by January and February, 2007 by
new/repaired transformers.
12. Thereafter, appellant filed a petition before the CERC
for approval of the transmission charges for the three replaced
ICTs in Rihand I based on the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004
(referred to hereinafter as ‘the Tariff Regulations’). The said
petition was registered as Petition No. 68 of 2008. Appellant
claimed de-capitalization for the transformers taken out from
Mainpuri and Kaithal and additional capitalization for the
new/repaired transformer originally procured for Bahadurgarh
sub-station and installed at the two sub-stations of Mandola
and Ballabgarh.
5
13. By order dated 03.02.2009, CERC did not allow the
claim of the appellant and dismissed Petition No. 68 of 2008.
14. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred Appeal
No. 91 of 2009 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
(‘Appellate Tribunal’ for short).
15. On 09.05.2006, the tariff for the Rihand
transmission systems were determined by the CERC for the
period from 01.04.2004 to 02.04.2009. On 04.09.2008,
appellant filed a petition before the CERC for revision of tariff in
respect of the Rihand transmission system for the period upto
02.04.2009 considering the net additional capitalization on
account of replacement of the three burnt ICTs at Mandola and
Ballabgarh. Appellant also sought for a direction to the
Northern Regional Power Committee for issuance of revised
availability certificate excluding the period when the three ICTs
were decapitalized and not in use. According to the appellant,
an availability certificate was required for claiming full
transmission charges and incentives. It was registered as
Petition No. 80 of 2008.
6
16. CERC vide the order dated 03.02.2009 disallowed the
claim of the appellant for decapitalization of the damaged
transformers and recapitalization of the installed transformers
as replacement for the damaged transformers. CERC further
held that the net cost for such replacement has to be met out
from the insurance fund reserve maintained by the appellant
under the internal insurance policy for which contribution was
being paid by the beneficiaries in the form of operations and
maintenance expenses. Further, CERC also did not accede to
the prayer of the appellant for giving directions to the Northern
Regional Power Committee for issuance of revised availability
certificate. Accordingly, vide the aforesaid order dated
03.02.2009, Petition No. 80 of 2008 filed by the appellant was
dismissed.
17. This led to filing of Appeal No. 92 of 2009 by the
appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were
heard together by the Appellate Tribunal; and vide the
impugned order dated 23.03.2011 dismissed the two appeals as
being devoid of merit.
7
18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Appellate Tribunal had virtually rubber stamped the findings
arrived at by the CERC. That apart it had interpreted Regulation
53(2)(iv) and Note 2 of the Tariff Regulations in a most illogical
manner. If this is the interpretation, then no transmission
licensee will ever get additional capitalization on restoration and
replacement of the ICTs. He also submits that interpretation of
the Appellate Tribunal viz-a-viz the self-insurance policy is
wholly illogical without appreciating that the fire had occurred
as a result of the machinery breakdown and hence it is not
covered under the self-insurance policy.
18.1. Because of such erroneous decision, appellant has
been denied Rs. 15.63 crores on account of capitalization and
Rs. 4.58 crores on account of tariff qua Rihand I transmission
system and Rs. 3.54 crores on account of capitalization qua
Rihand II transmission system.
18.2. He submits that in April-May, 2006, the three ICTs at
Mandola and Ballabhgarh were damaged due to internal faults
8
i.e. machinery breakdown which resulted in the burning of the
ICTs.
19. Learned counsel again referred to Regulation 53(2) of
the Tariff Regulations and submits that any work that may be
required to be done by a transmission licensee for successfully
operating the transmission system is permissible expenditure
for capitalization, whether it is a new work or a replacement.
Any other interpretation would render the aforesaid provision
particularly Note 2 meaningless. Contrary to this Appellate
Tribunal has returned a finding that replacement of
ICTs/transformers is neither an additional work necessary for
efficient and successful operation nor an old asset requiring
replacement. Such a finding is unsustainable.
19.1. It is further submitted that Appellate Tribunal was
not justified in denying decapitalization and additional
capitalization of the ICTs on the ground that it was the
responsibility of the appellant for maintenance of the
transmission system. Appellant’s decapitalization and
capitalization were under the terms of accepted accounting
9
practice. By not factoring in the said expenditure as additional
capitalization for the value of the ICTs has led to a non-cost
reflective tariff being paid to the appellant. Finding rendered by
the Appellate Tribunal that provisions of Regulation 53 of the
Tariff Regulations does not cover replacement of damaged
ICTs/transformers is incorrect for the reason that any
additional expenditure is contemplated to be an additional
capitalization if it relates to the efficient and successful
operation of the project. Regulation 53 cannot be interpreted in
a narrow and pedantic manner.
19.2. Referring to the self-insurance policy of the appellant,
learned counsel submits that the same covers losses from fire,
whether it is internal or external or even if it is due to machinery
breakdown. Fire was not the direct cause of the damage to the
ICTs/transformers; rather it was machinery failure that possibly
led to the fire. Learned counsel submits that if the fire had
caused the machinery breakdown, the coverage will be available
under the self-insurance policy as the proximate cause in such
a case would be the fire. In this connection he has placed
10
reliance on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance
1
Company Limited Vs. Zuari Industries Limited . He has also
placed reliance on another decision of this Court in Gujarat Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private
2
Limited to contend that Appellate Tribunal virtually rubber
stamped the decision of CERC.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for some of the
respondents i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 10, who are the
beneficiaries, supported the order of CERC as well as that of the
Appellate Tribunal.
20.1. It is submitted that appellant under the statute is
under an obligation to maintain a healthy transmission system.
For maintenance of the transmission system, the beneficiaries
are not required to pay additional amount. The very concept of
additional capitalization is based on the premise that in case
any additional benefit is given to the beneficiaries, the amount
can be capitalized. It is contended that by replacement of the
1
(2009) 9 SCC 70
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 411
11
failed transformers no additional benefit is given to the
beneficiaries. Hence, the amount claimed for replacement of the
transformers cannot be capitalized.
20.2. Appellant had also shown a huge figure as cost of the
installed transformers though such transformers were not new
ones. Actual cost of the transformers would be much less. The
differential amount cannot be capitalized.
20.3. Adverting to Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations,
it is submitted that additional capitalization can be claimed only
in respect of the works in the original scope of the project. That
apart, additional capitalization can be claimed due to change in
law or on account of any award passed in arbitration, decree of
court, etc. Replacement of transformers does not fall in any of
such categories. Hence, the amounts claimed in both the
appeals cannot be capitalized.
20.4. The self-insurance reserve policy of the appellant
covers unsecured risks. The policy does not say that it will not
cover the risk regarding failure of transformers. If the appellant
12
had not secured that risk in the policy, it cannot be allowed to
penalise the beneficiaries.
20.5. Learned counsel has also justified the decision of the
Appellate Tribunal declining to issue directions to Northern
Regional Power Committee (NRPC).
20.6. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the
appeals which should be dismissed.
21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
have received the due consideration of the Court.
22. Upon perusal of the materials on record and after
hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
the following questions arise for our consideration in this case:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal and respondent
No.1 were justified in rejecting the claim made
by the appellant of additional capitalization due to
replacement of the damaged ICTs?
2. Whether the self-insurance policy of the appellant
covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs?
13
3. Whether the Member Secretary of NRPC should
have been directed by the Appellate Tribunal to issue
revised availability certificate for the transmission
assets?
23. To consolidate all the laws relating to generation,
transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and
generally for taking measures conducive to development of the
electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting
the interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas,
rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies
regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally
benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority,
Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate
Tribunal and for such related matters, the Electricity Act has
been enacted. Whether it is Appellate Tribunal traceable to
Section 110 or the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(CERC) referred to in Section 76(1) or Central Transmission
Utility meaning any government company which the Central
Government may notify under sub-section (1) of Section 38,
14
such as the appellant, all are covered by provisions of the
Electricity Act. It also provides for appeal to the Supreme Court,
as in the present case, under Section 125 against any decision
or order of the Appellate Tribunal on a substantial question of
law.
24. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 178
of the Electricity Act and all other powers enabling in this behalf
and after previous publication, CERC has made the Tariff
Regulations which came into force on 01.04.2004.
25. The scope and extent of application of the Tariff
Regulations is provided in Regulation 2. As per clause (1), where
tariff is determined through a transparent process of bidding in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central
Government, CERC shall adopt such tariff in accordance with
the provisions of the Electricity Act. Clause (2) says that the
Tariff Regulations shall apply in all such cases where tariff is to
be determined by the CERC based on capital cost. Ofcourse, the
CERC has the authority to prescribe relaxed norms of
application for determination of tariff.
15
26. Chapter - 2 of the Tariff Regulations deals with
thermal power generating stations. Regulations 14 and 18 are
included in Chapter - 2.
26.1. Regulation 14(xviii) defines ‘Operation and
Maintenance Expenses’ or O&M expenses to mean the
expenditure incurred on operation and maintenance of the
generating station including part thereof and includes the
expenditure on manpower, repairs, spares, consumables,
insurance and overhead.
26.2. Regulation 18 deals with additional capitalization.
Regulation 18 is extracted hereunder:
18. Additional capitalisation : (1) The following
capital expenditure within the original scope of work
actually incurred after the date of commercial
operation and up to the cut off date may be admitted
by the Commission, subject to prudence check:
(i) Deferred liabilities;
(ii) Works deferred for execution;
(iii) Procurement of initial capital spares in
the original scope of work, subject to ceiling
specified in regulation 17;
16
(iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or
for compliance of the order or decree of a court;
and
(v) On account of change in law.
Provided that original scope of work along with
estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along
with the application for provisional tariff.
Provided further that a list of the deferred
liabilities and works deferred for execution shall be
submitted along with the application for final tariff
after the date of commercial operation of the
generating station.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3) of this
regulation, the capital expenditure of the following
nature actually incurred after the cut off date may be
admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence
check:
(i) Deferred liabilities relating to works/services
within the original scope of work;
(ii) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for
compliance of the order or decree of a court;
(iii) On account of change in law;
(iv) Any additional works/services which have
become necessary for efficient and successful
operation of the generating station, but not
included in the original project cost; and
17
(v) Deferred works relating to ash pond or
ash handling system in the original scope of
work.
(3) Any expenditure on minor items/assets like
normal tools and tackles, personal computers, furniture,
air-conditioners, voltage stabilizers, refrigerators, fans,
coolers, TV, washing machines, heat-convectors,
carpets, mattresses etc. brought after the cut off date
shall not be considered for additional capitalisation
for determination of tariff with effect from 1.4.2004.
Note
The list of items is illustrative and not exhaustive.
(4) Impact of additional capitalisation in tariff revision
may be considered by the Commission twice in a tariff
period, including revision of tariff after the cut off date.
Note 1
Any expenditure admitted on account of committed
liabilities within the original scope of work and the
expenditure deferred on techno-economic grounds but
falling within the original scope of work shall be serviced
in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation
20.
Note 2
Any expenditure on replacement of old assets
shall be considered after writing off the gross value of
the original assets from the original project cost,
except such items as are listed in clause (3) of this
regulation.
18
Note 3
Any expenditure admitted by the Commission
for determination of tariff on account of new works
not in the original scope of work shall be serviced in
the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation
20.
Note 4
Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for
determination of tariff on renovation and modernization
and life extension shall be serviced on normative debt-
equity ratio specified in regulation 20 after writing off
the original amount of the replaced assets from the
original project cost.
27. To answer question No.1, it is necessary to advert to
Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations which is included in
Chapter - 4, the heading of which is Inter-State Transmission.
Regulation 53 reads thus:
53. Additional capitalisation: (1) The following
capital expenditure within the original scope of work
actually incurred after the date of commercial
operation and up to the cut off date may be admitted
by the Commission, subject to prudence check:
(i) Deferred liabilities;
(ii) Works deferred for execution;
19
(iii) Procurement of initial capital spares in the
original scope of works subject to the ceiling norm
specified in regulation 52;
(iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or
compliance of the order or decree of a court; and
(v) On account of change in law.
Provided that original scope of work along with
estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along
with the application for provisional tariff.
Provided further that a list of the deferred
liabilities and works deferred for execution shall be
submitted along with the application for final tariff
after the date of commercial operation of the
transmission system.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3) of this
regulation, the capital expenditure of the following
nature actually incurred after the cut off date may
be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence
check:
(i) Deferred liabilities relating to works/services
within the original scope of work;
(ii) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or
compliance of the order or decree of a court;
(iii) On account of change in law; and
20
(iv) Any additional works/services which have become
necessary for efficient and successful operation of the
project, but not included in the original project cost.
(3) Any expenditure on minor items/assets brought
after the cut off date like tools and tackles, personal
computers, furniture, air-conditioners, voltage stabilizers,
refrigerators, coolers, fans, T.V., washing machine, heat-
convectors, mattresses, carpets, etc shall not be
considered for additional capitalisation for determination
of tariff with effect from 1.4.2004.
Note
The list of items is illustrative and not exhaustive.
(4) Impact of additional capitalisation in tariff
revision may be considered by the Commission twice
in a tariff period, including revision of tariff after the
cut off date.
Note 1
Any expenditure admitted on account of committed
liabilities within the original scope of work and the
expenditure deferred on techno-economic grounds
but falling within the original scope of work shall be
serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified
in regulation 54.
21
Note 2
Any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall
be considered after writing off the entire value of the
original assets from the original capital cost.
28. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that
Regulation 53 provides for additional capital expenditure
incurred after the commercial operation date. It says that
additional capital expenditure incurred after the commercial
operation date and upto the cut-off-date may be admitted by the
CERC if such expenditure relates to deferred liabilities, deferred
works, procurement of initial spares (within specified norms),
compliance with arbitral award or court order or change in law
subject to submission of necessary documents and a prudent
check. Post cut-off date, additional capitalization may still be
allowed for similar liabilities and more importantly essential
new works or services necessary for efficient project operation
but minor assets like furniture, computers or appliances are
excluded. It also provides that expenditure on replacement of
old assets shall be considered after the full value of the old asset
is written off and the impact of additional capitalization on tariff
22
can be considered by the CERC twice in a tariff period, including
revision of tariff after the cut off date.
29. Thus, it is evident that Regulation 53 does not
include within its scope replacement of ICTs due to damage or
failure. Regulation 53(2)(iv) says that any additional
work/services which have become necessary for the efficient
and successful operation of the project but not included in the
original project cost may be admitted by the CERC as additional
capital expenditure. Contention of the appellant that such a
provision would apply to it also does not appeal to the Court as
all that the appellant had done was diversion and replacement
of ICTs. This cannot be construed as doing any additional
work/services. On the contrary, we concur with the contention
of some of the respondents that as a central transmission utility,
it was the duty of the appellant to maintain a healthy
transmission system; replacement of damaged equipment(s) is
part of operation and maintenance.
30. Insofar Note 2 to Regulation 53 is concerned, it says
that any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall be
23
considered after writing off the entire value of the original assets
from the original capital cost. In this case, the transmission
systems were in normal operational condition since those were
commissioned. Both Rihand I and Rihand II cannot be
considered as old assets as these were fairly new. There is
nothing on record to show that prior to the breakdown of ICTs,
the transmission systems were in bad shape or had started
wearing out.
31. That being the position, the answer to question No.1
can only be in the affirmative, in favour of the respondents and
against the appellant.
32. This brings us to the second question which is as to
whether the self-insurance policy of the appellant covered the
cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs.
33. In the fiscal year 1994-1995, appellant opted to
adopt a self-insurance reserve policy based on its past
experience and in alignment with industry practices. The
decision was taken to allocate estimated appropriations in the
accounts for future losses potentially arising out of uninsured
24
risks, such as, machinery breakdown and fire risk of
equipments in operational sub-stations. Consequently, a self-
insurance account was created. The reserve was created at the
rate of 0.1 percent of the gross value of the fixed assets at the
close of each year covering potential future losses from
uninsured risks with the exception of those related to high
voltage direct current valve halls and sub-stations. The
insurance reserve covered losses caused by events such as fire
including by way of lightning, explosion/implosion, bush fires
etc. with such losses being adjusted against the insurance
reserve as per CERC’s guidelines upon actual occurrence. We
thus find that there are no inclusions or exclusions with regard
to loss caused by ‘fire’ nor does it include any exception to loss
caused by fire.
34. It is the contention of the appellant that it could not
take finance from the self-insurance reserve as the cause of the
loss to the ICTs was damage due to machinery breakdown
leading to fire. It is not the fire itself which damaged the ICTs.
We find such contention of the appellant to be contradictory.
25
35. Considering the above we are of the view that the loss
caused to the appellant by fire, whether by way of implosion or
by way of explosion, would be covered by the policy as it covered
all fires which caused loss without any exception and as all the
three ICTs were operating until those got burnt. Therefore, the
loss was caused due to fire because of which the ICTs became
damaged beyond immediate repair.
36. In Zuari Industries Limited (supra), this Court
analyzed the expression ‘proximate cause’. In that case there
was a short-circuit in the main switchboard installed in the
sub-station receiving electricity from the State Electricity Board.
This resulted in a flashover producing overcurrents. The
flashover and overcurrents generated excessive heat. The paint
on the panel board was charred by the excessive heat producing
smoke because of which the partition of the adjoining feeder
developed a hole. The smoke travelled to the generator
compartment where also there was short-circuit because of
which the power tripped. As a result, the entire electricity
supply to the plant stopped. Due to the stoppage of electric
26
supply, supply of water/stream to the waste heat boiler by the
flue gases at high temperature continued to be fed into the
boiler which resulted in damage to the boiler. It was in that
context that the court considered the question as to whether the
flashover or the fire was the proximate cause of the damage in
question. After a thorough analysis of the chain or sequence of
events, this Court took the view that the proximate cause is not
the cause which is nearest in point of time or place but the
active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train or chain of
event which brings about the ultimate result without the
intervention of any other force working from an independent
source. On that basis this Court held that the fire was the
efficient and active cause of the damage. Had the fire not
occurred, the damage also would not have occurred. There was
no intervening agency which was an independent source of the
damage. Therefore, this Court did not agree with the conclusion
of the Surveyor that the fire was not the cause of the damage to
the machinery of the claimant.
27
37. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
present case, it can be seen that the proximate cause for the
damage to the ICTs is the implosion/explosion in the
internal/external machinery of the ICTs which caused fire. All
the three ICTs became unserviceable due to the fire and had to
be replaced by the appellant. Appellant has admitted that
preventive maintenance and checks were done from time to time
prior to the incident and everything was going fine. It was only
when the fire broke out and damaged the ICTs did the
authorities concerned diverted other transformers for
replacement of the damaged transformers. Thus, our answer to
question No. 2 would be that the self-insurance policy of the
appellant covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs.
Therefore, Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the
appellant to finance the net cost from the self-insurance fund
reserve as part of the operation and maintenance charges.
Accordingly, question No. 2 stands answered in the affirmative
and against the appellant.
28
38. Since we have decided question Nos.1 and 2 against
the appellant, question No.3 has become redundant as
decapitalization and additional capitalization of the replaced
ICTs have not been allowed. Therefore, question of issuing
direction to the Member-Secretary, NRPC for issuance of revised
availability certificate for the transmission assets does not arise.
39. Before parting with the record, we may refer to the
decision of this Court in Gujarat Ujra Vikas Nigam Limited
(supra) in which case this Court agreed with the appellant that
there was not a shred of evidence adduced by the respondent
beyond the bare allegation of coercion made against the
appellant. It was in that context this Court expressed surprise
as to how such a sweeping allegation of coercion was accepted
by the Appellate Tribunal de hors adequate pleadings. Therefore,
this Court opined that Appellate Tribunal had virtually rubber
stamped the findings of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory
Commission on coercion. Evidently, the above decision would
have no application to the facts of the present case. That apart,
Appellate Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons while
29
rejecting the appeals of the appellant. We, therefore, do not find
any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
40. That being the position, we are of the considered
opinion that the two appeals are devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No Cost.
………………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
.……………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 05, 2025.
30