Supreme Court Slams APTEL For Reviewing Settled Issue, Imposes ₹3.5 Lakh Costs

The Supreme Court recently criticised the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi, for reviewing its 2019 order in 2024, despite the issue having already been settled by the Supreme Court. Describing the tribunal's action as a breach of judicial discipline, Court said the tribunal had gone "haywire" in allowing the review.

“It is not often, but we do come across orders akin to the one impugned, which is in blatant breach of judicial discipline and in clear violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It raises serious doubts in our minds about independence vis-à-vis accountability,” a Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said.

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation against the order of the APTEL, New Delhi, passed in a petition seeking review of an order of the year 2019. 

The review was allowed in 2024, more than five years after the original order, despite the issue being covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited & Ors v. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors (2018), which constituted a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, Court noted.

The Apex Court pointed out that although the words 'duplication' or 'double allowance' had not been used in its earlier judgment, it had already held that the provision for a Sinking Fund could be considered an item of expenditure and recovered through tariff, alongside depreciation. Both were permissible under Section 40 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (DVC Act).

The DVC Act is a central statute in India that established the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) as a statutory body.

“We cannot but observe that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi has gone haywire; we are apologetic for the expression but we find no substitute to express our angst in allowing the review, that too, when the very same issue, for the earlier years, was settled by this Court in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited (2008), based on which, the original order was passed by the Tribunal,” the Bench said.

Court found the review to be clearly illegal, totally misplaced and blatantly in breach of the principles of judicial discipline. 

It highlighted the travesty insofar as it violated Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 

“Our judicial system with the hierarchy of courts thrives on the sanctity of the decisions of the appellate, revisional and supervisory jurisdictions to be given due weightage. As far as Article 141 is concerned it’s a Constitutional imprimatur which ensures the decisions of the highest court of the land to be followed, without which there will be mayhem,” Court said.

The Bench acknowledged the criticism that the Supreme Court's decisions are supreme not because the Court is infallible, but because it is the final court of appeal.

However, finality and closure is the expedient need in litigation, the Bench emphasised.

The Bench clarified that the dispute before it concerned the recovery of contributions to the Sinking Fund through tariff.

It noted that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) had allowed the Sinking Fund as an expenditure, and APTEL had affirmed the decision.

Court observed that its earlier judgment had placed emphasis on the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which preserves the continued application of the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Electricity Act.

Court held that this specific statutory provision had an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Tariff Regulations, 2004.

It further explained that the special statutory framework governing DVC permitted both depreciation and contributions to the Sinking Fund to be considered recoverable expenses while determining tariffs.

The Bench reiterated that the issue of recovering both depreciation and contributions to the Sinking Fund through tariff had already been settled by the Supreme Court. APTEL, therefore, could not reopen the issue through a review petition.

It also explained that an error apparent on the face of the record, which can justify a review, must be evident on its own and should not require detailed examination or an elaborate process of reasoning.

A judgment cannot be reviewed merely because a different view could have been taken or because a party seeks correction of an alleged legal error that would require the matter to be re-adjudicated, Court said.

Finding that APTEL's review order did not satisfy the test of an error apparent on the face of the record and instead sought to reopen settled legal positions, Court set it aside and restored the Tribunal's original order dated May 17, 2019.

The Bench also expressed concern that no appeal had been filed against the original order before the Supreme Court. Instead, one of the appellants before APTEL had sought a review and waited for five years for it to be heard.

“We also observe with some consternation that there were no appeals filed from the earlier order to this court and one of the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal had filed for a review and waited for five years to get it heard,” the Bench said.

Describing the action as an abuse of the process of law, Court imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on the first respondent, Maithan Alloys Limited.

Court also took note of the intervention by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), a public sector undertaking which claims to be a Maharatna company.

“We cannot also ignore that a Public Sector Undertaking, who claims to be a Maharatna Company, has willingly participated in the attempt to canvas for upholding an order passed clearly in breach of judicial discipline and violating Article 141 of the Constitution of India and sought intervention in the matter,” the Bench observed.

Finding SAIL's intervention to have been ill-advised, Court imposed costs of Rs 1.5 lakh on the company.

Both amounts are to be paid to DVC within one month, failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum will be payable, Court ordered.

Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026