Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1390 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - competence of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to entertain and dispose of the petitions filed under Section 86(1)(a) of the Act even though it does not have a person of law as one of its Members - whether the Commission discharges an adjudicatory function while dealing with such petitions? Whether the function of tariff fixation is adjudicatory? - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court V. DATCHINAMURTHY AND OTHERS VERSUS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION, (INTELLIGENCE), INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, AND ANOTHER [1980 (11) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] categorically held that even an obiter dictum of the Supreme Court insofar as it expounded the law would be binding on all the Courts under the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Ors. [2007 (8) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT] also took the same view when it held that the adjudicatory function of the Commission is limited to the matter prescribed in Section 86(1)(f). There is a clear distinction between adjudicatory function and quasi-judicial function. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon defines "adjudication" as the legal process of resolving a dispute; the process of judicially deciding a case; the application of the law to the facts and an authoritative declaration of the result; judicial determination of a cause after taking into consideration the material on record and after hearing the parties; it implies a hearing by a court after notice of legal evidence on the factual issue involved. On the other hand, a determination of a question by an executive officer or other person who is not a court is "quasi-judicial" and he must follow the rules of natural justice. It describes a function that resembles the judicial function. It is something that is between a judicial and administrative function. The expression "quasi" means "not exactly". The contention of the petitioners that tariff fixation is an adjudicatory function is rejected. Since it is not an adjudicatory function, there is no bar for the Bench comprising the present Chairman and the technical Member to hear the tariff petitions. Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Article 144 states that that all authorities, civil and judicial, shall act in aid of the Supreme Court - the present proceedings can very well go on and everything can be finalized by the Commission as now constituted except the formal declaration of the orders on the tariff petitions. The moment the appointment of the law Member is notified, the Commission is free to formally dispose of the Tariff Petitions. The restraint order of this Court would operate till then and not a moment thereafter. Petition disposed off.
|