An appeal against rejection of a review petition is not maintainable.

The appellant, a consumer in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission’s order dated 27.01.2022 rejecting his petition for review of the Commission’s tariff order dated 07.10.2008.

Respondent No. 2, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (JPVL), had developed a 400 MW run-of-the-river hydroelectric project in Uttarakhand and entered into a Power Purchase Agreement dated 16.01.2007 with Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).

The Commission had approved the project’s capital cost and tariff through orders dated 05.04.2007, 12.04.2007 and 07.10.2008.

In 2021, the appellant filed Petition No. 1702/2021 under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 51 of the UPERC Conduct of Business Regulations, 2019, seeking review of the 07.10.2008 tariff order.

1. Whether the appellant’s petition before the Commission was a petition for revision or fresh determination of tariff, rather than a petition for review of the tariff order dated 07.10.2008.

2. Whether an appeal lies against the Commission’s order rejecting the review petition, or whether such an appeal is barred under Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers a State Electricity Regulatory Commission to review its decisions, directions and orders.

Regulation 51(a) of the UPERC Conduct of Business Regulations, 2019 permits an aggrieved person to seek review of a Commission’s direction, decision or order, subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The power of review under Section 94(1)(f) is analogous to the civil court’s review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and is confined to the grounds recognised for review.

Under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC, an appeal is not maintainable against an order rejecting a review petition.

Although the appellant relied on the Commission’s tariff-determination powers under Sections 62(1)(a) and 86(1)(a)–(b) of the Electricity Act, those provisions did not alter the character of the petition actually filed.

The Tribunal examined the petition’s title, statutory basis and prayers.

The petition expressly sought review under Section 94(1)(f) and Regulation 51, and its principal prayers requested review of the 07.10.2008 order on the ground that it violated the Commission’s regulations.

The requests for fresh tariff scrutiny, refund of alleged excess recoveries and filing of a fresh tariff application were ancillary and would arise only if the review were first allowed.

The appellant had also argued before the Commission that the tariff order contained an error apparent on the face of the record, and the Commission had framed issues concerning limitation and the existence of such an error.

Since the appellant did not dispute the Commission’s description of the proceedings or object to the issues framed, the Tribunal held that the petition was unequivocally a review petition, not an independent tariff-revision proceeding.

Consequently, the Commission’s order was an order rejecting review, against which an appeal was barred by Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC.

Since the Commission had rejected that review petition on 27.01.2022, the appeal against the rejection order was not maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, and all pending applications were disposed of.