Summary
The Supreme Court held that MSEB’s circulars issued before MERC was constituted could not be invalidated for lacking that Commission’s approval. As to the later disputed period, the Commission should have considered its earlier orders and the merits of the charges. Nevertheless, after two decades the Court declined remand and set aside the refund direction because the manufacturers had passed the electricity costs to buyers, making refund unjust enrichment on these facts.
Issues
- Whether pre-constitution tariff circulars required MERC approval.
- Whether refund or remand was warranted for the disputed later period.
Held
- Until the Regulatory Commission was constituted, the Electricity Board retained its tariff-setting jurisdiction under the 1948 Act. Circulars issued before MERC’s establishment on 5 August 1999 could not be quashed merely for want of its approval. (¶¶ 24, 28)
- For the 2 September 1999 circular and the period ending 28 April 2000, MERC and APTEL should have considered the Commission’s earlier policy-related observations, the submitted approval request and the reasonableness of the demand on the merits. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- The manufacturers used the electricity to make products and passed the costs to buyers. In the peculiar circumstances, ordering refund would unjustly enrich them. The Court also declined to remit that historical dispute for merits determination after two decades. (¶¶ 23, 27, 28)
- The relief was confined to the stated competence and refund conclusions; it did not constitute an independent merits determination approving every disputed charge in the later circular. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed to the stated extent: Commission and APTEL orders set aside, invalidation of pre-establishment circulars held erroneous, and refund direction vacated. No remand for the historical disputed period; parties to bear their own costs.