Orders Were Void ab Initio Owing To Lack Of Quorum | Tariff Determination Falls Within Regulatory Domain | Meghalaya High Court Upholds MSERC’s Power To Recall And Rehear Proceedings
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) lawfully exercised its inherent powers in recalling tariff orders dated 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024, which were issued without compliance with statutory quorum requirements. The Court directed that the recall order dated 23-08-2024 and the consequent tariff order dated 24-10-2024 were legally valid, and dismissed the writ petitions challenging their legitimacy.
The lead petition was filed by the Byrnihat Industries Association, a registered society representing various industrial units in Meghalaya. Similar petitions were also filed by M/s Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd., collectively challenging the recall of earlier tariff orders and the Commission's jurisdiction under the Electricity Act, 2003.
The dispute arose from the MSERC’s orders dated 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024 fixing tariffs for financial years 2024-2025 to 2026-2027. These orders were challenged by Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Limited (MePGCL), Meghalaya Power Transmission Corporation Limited (MePTCL), and Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL) in WP(C). No. 216 and 217 of 2024, on grounds that they were passed without proper quorum, violating Regulation 18(3) of the MSERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2007.
Upon withdrawal of those petitions, the utility corporations sought rehearing before the Commission, resulting in the issuance of a fresh notice and the recall of the earlier orders through an order dated 23-08-2024. The Byrnihat Industries Association and other petitioners filed writ petitions against this recall, arguing that the MSERC lacked power to revisit its tariff orders.
The petitioners contended that the Commission had become functus officio after passing the original tariff orders and that the Electricity Act, 2003 did not grant the MSERC authority to recall orders, whether under inherent powers or otherwise. They further argued that Regulation 26 of the 2007 Regulations did not confer any independent power of recall and was merely a savings clause. Prominence was placed on the distinction between review powers under Regulation 21 and recall powers, asserting the Commission had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
They also submitted that since the Commission had acted without jurisdiction, the alternative remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) under Section 111 of the Electricity Act was not efficacious, citing Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and other precedents.
In opposition, counsel for MSERC argued that the earlier orders were legally invalid, having been signed by only one Member although heard by two, contravening Regulation 18(3). The Commission acted on applications from MePDCL, MePGCL, and MePTCL and invoked its inherent powers under Regulation 111 of the MYT Regulations, 2014 to recall the defective orders.
They further submitted that there was no statutory bar against the Commission exercising such powers to ensure the ends of justice. Supporting judgments from the Supreme Court, including Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni and Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, were cited to validate the Commission's inherent jurisdiction.
Additional arguments were advanced on procedural propriety, distinguishing between proceedings "before the Commission" and "of the Commission," interpreting quorum requirements under Section 92 of the Electricity Act and associated Regulations.
The respondents also rebutted claims of estoppel, suppression of facts, and lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the impugned orders were necessitated by a patent defect in the original proceedings.
The Court noted that "the fundamental issue... is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commission to recall its own orders in exercise of its inherent powers." It stated that "Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has provided for appeal against orders made by the appropriate Commission... the impugned orders in question revolve around the challenge that the Regulation as framed under Section 181(2)(zl)... does not contemplate such action."
The Court recorded that "a patent error had transpired in issuing the orders dated 05.06.2024 and 06.06.2024" and stated that the MSERC was correct in invoking inherent powers under Regulation 111 of the MYT Regulations, 2014 and Regulation 26 of the 2007 Regulations.
It observed: "By applying the analogy of the... Greater Noida case... inherent power can be exercised by a Court or a Tribunal in the absence of any provision to the contrary, to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
Referencing decisions such as Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, the Court noted that recall is permissible where there is "inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent". It found that "Regulation 18(3)... categorically provided that all orders of the Commission shall be signed and dated by the Chairperson and Members hearing the matter" and thus the original orders were void.
The Court stated: "The earlier orders... suffering from a patent lack of jurisdiction... the Commission in exercising its inherent powers... cannot be said to be without jurisdiction."
In summary, it found the Commission's action to recall and rehear the tariff petitions as not only within jurisdiction but necessary to correct legal errors.
The Court held that "the recall order dated 23-08-2024 and the subsequent tariff order dated 24-10-2024 passed by the Commission, cannot be said to be a case of an action without jurisdiction." It directed that these orders were valid and enforceable.
The Court further held: "This Court finds no merit in the writ petitions... and the same are accordingly dismissed."
It also directed that "all questions regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, and procedural regularity have been comprehensively addressed... and no further interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Paul, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Chanda, Advocate; Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.J. Das and Ms. A. Pradhan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Venkatesh, Advocate with Mr. A. Nangia, Mr. A. Nigotia, Mr. A. Singh, Ms. F. Langbnang, and Ms. G.C. Marboh, Advocates (for Respondents 1 & 2); Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with Ms. S. Laloo and Mr. A.S. Pandey, Advocates (for Respondents 3–5)
Case Title: Byrnihat Industries Association & Ors. v. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:463
Case Numbers: WP(C). No. 339 of 2024; WP(C). No. 9 of 2025; WP(C). No. 13 of 2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
[Read/Download order]
