Electricity Tribunal Review Reopening Settled Law Set Aside

Electricity Tribunal's Review Reopening Issue Settled by Supreme Court Set Aside; Exemplary Costs Imposed

Published: 30 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity which, on a review petition pending for five years, reopened its 2019 ruling allowing Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) to recover both depreciation and Sinking Fund contributions through tariff. Holding the review in breach of judicial discipline and Article 141, as the issue stood settled by Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys, the Court restored the 2019 order and imposed costs on Maithan Alloys and Steel Authority of India Limited (opening paragraph, paras 29-30).

Key holdings

The Tribunal's 2024 review order was set aside and its order of 17.05.2019 on DVC's 2009-2014 tariff restored (paras 2, 30).

Depreciation and Sinking Fund contributions may both be recovered through DVC's tariff under Section 40 of the DVC Act and Regulation 43 (paras 21, 24, 26).

Reviewing an order that followed a binding Supreme Court decision breached judicial discipline and Article 141 (paras 27, 29).

A review pursued for five years without any appeal was an abuse of process; an intervening public sector undertaking also paid costs (para 30).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

For 2009-2014, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission fixed DVC's tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003, the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 and the 2009 Tariff Regulations (para 2). The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld that order on 17.05.2019, on its own reasoning and on Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys, which had upheld the Sinking Fund for redeeming DVC's bonds as a tariff item for an earlier period (paras 2-3, 30). No appeal was filed. Maithan Alloys sought review; the 2024 review order let DVC claim either the Sinking Fund contribution or depreciation on bond-funded assets, not both (opening paragraph, paras 3-4, 7). DVC appealed; Steel Authority of India Limited intervened (para 3).

Court's Findings

The Court first examined Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys for its own satisfaction, since an error by a coordinate Bench would call for a reference to a larger Bench, and found no reason to doubt it (paras 8, 14). Under the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, the DVC Act still applies where not inconsistent with it; Section 174 nullifies only inconsistent provisions (paras 12-15). Section 40 of the DVC Act, providing for depreciation and reserve funds before net profit, is not inconsistent with Section 61, and Regulation 43 of the 2009 Regulations treats both as expenditure recoverable through tariff (paras 18-21). Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys had upheld the two together, though without the words ‘double allowance’; the review petition itself accepted that the Sinking Fund issue was no longer res integra; and the 2019 order had dealt with double allowance (paras 22-24, 26). Relying on Kamal Sengupta, the Court held that review cannot correct an error that is not self-evident or let a tribunal sit in appeal; the impugned order met none of the review principles, overstepped the contours of review and was ‘clearly illegal’, in breach of judicial discipline and Article 141 (paras 25, 27-29).

Legal Principle

A tribunal cannot use review to reopen an issue the Supreme Court has settled and on which its own order rested. An error needing long reasoning to detect is not an error apparent, and a claim that the Supreme Court overlooked a point belongs in a properly constituted appeal, if at all (paras 7, 27-29).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For utilities, consumers and their advisers before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, this judgment is a warning on review petitions. A review cannot be used to argue that the Supreme Court missed a point in a decision the Tribunal's order followed; that argument belongs, if at all, in an appeal before the Supreme Court (paras 7, 27-28). Delay counts too: a review kept pending for five years after no appeal was filed was called an abuse of process (para 30). Intervenors are exposed as well: a public sector undertaking that supported the review order was itself ordered to pay costs (para 30).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited & Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 281
Followed Discussed at ¶ 8, 10, 15, 22, 23, 25, 27
Held that the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 keeps the DVC Act applying where it is not inconsistent with the 2003 Act, and upheld the Appellate Tribunal on depreciation and the Sinking Fund under Section 40 of the DVC Act; the Court examined it for its own satisfaction, found no reason to doubt it, concurred with it, and held the Tribunal's review, which reopened that settled issue, to be in breach of judicial discipline and Article 141.
State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27, 28
On review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which the Court treated as in pari materia with the Electricity Act's review provision: an error that is not self-evident is not an error apparent, and a tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own decision; the Court extracted its principles and found that the impugned review fell under none of them.