Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc.

Held: Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Appellant was establishing the Project in order to perform its statutory obligations – DERC granted its approval to the tariff with certain conditions after taking into consideration all the relevant factors – However, the same was upset by APTEL on a hyper-technical ground – Under/s.63, the Appropriate Commission is entitled to adopt the tariff if such tariff has been determined through a transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government – Power of the Commission is notwithstanding anything contained in s.62 – A plain reading of s.63 shows that it does not restrict its invocation only by Discoms or generating companies – The interpretation of APTEL is adding words in s.63 which the legislature did not intend to – Further, APTEL could not have read s.63 in isolation – s.63 will have to be read in harmony with s.86(1)(b) – The legislature intended that the State Commission while exercising its powers u/s.63 shall adopt the tariff when it has been determined in the bidding process – However, while adopting the same it will have to be satisfied that the same is done in a transparent manner and as to whether the interests of the generators/Discoms are balanced with the interests of the consumers – Reading s.63 in the manner as interpreted by the APTEL, would impose unnecessary restrictions on the powers and duties of the State Commission u/s.86(1)(b) which are of a very wide amplitude – Furthermore, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of s.63 and r.15, SWM Rules – r.15 enacted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, mandates the appellant to undertake WTE project – Insofar as the WTE projects are concerned, the provisions under the Act will have to be read in addition to the provisions u/r.15 and not in derogation thereof – Also, s.86(1)(e) r/w r.6.4 of the Tariff Policy provide for promoting cogeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution licensee – APTEL also failed to take into consideration that the WTE project in question was in the larger public interest providing for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the city of Delhi – Orders of DERC affirmed – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. [Paras 28, 29, 35, 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54-56, 58] Interpretation of Statutes – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.63 – Interpretation of – Literal interpretation – Courts by judicial interpretation not to add, alter, or delete the words when the statute upon its plain reading is capable of giving a meaning as intended by the legislature:

Held: When the statute read in a literal manner is capable of giving meaning to the provision that the legislation intended to and does not lead to any absurdity, it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to add, alter, or delete any words to such a statute – Upon a plain reading of the provisions of s.63, the meaning gathered does not result in any absurdity thus, addition of words in the statute by judicial interpretation is wholly impermissible. [Paras 30, 36]

Electricity Act, 2003 – s.86 – Duty of the State Commission – Discussed.