Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited Vs Electricity Department (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited against an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) due to an excessive delay of 161 days in filing. The apex court, in its judgment, reiterated the strict timelines prescribed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which sets a maximum period of 120 days (initial 60 days plus a further condonable delay of 60 days) for filing appeals.
A bench of the Supreme Court noted that Suryachakra Power had initially filed a review petition before APTEL, which was eventually withdrawn to file the appeal before the Supreme Court. While APTEL had condoned the delay in filing the review petition, the Supreme Court found the subsequent delay in approaching it unjustifiable.
Section 125 of the Electricity Act explicitly provides a 60-day window for filing appeals from APTEL orders, with a provision for the Supreme Court to condone an additional delay not exceeding 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. The court firmly stated that it cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to extend this special limitation period outlined in the Electricity Act. This position was previously established by the Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others [(2010) 5 SCC 23], where it was held that the special limitation under the Electricity Act overrides the general provisions of the Limitation Act in this specific context.
Suryachakra Power’s counsel argued for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting a proceeding in a court lacking jurisdiction, provided the prosecution was done with due diligence and in good faith. The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle that Section 14 can apply even when Section 5 cannot, citing P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 58].
However, the court found that Suryachakra Power failed to meet the crucial requirements of due diligence and good faith. The original APTEL order was passed on November 28, 2014, and the certified copy was obtained on December 17, 2014. The review petition was filed on February 25, 2015, beyond the initial 30-day limitation period for review. Even after withdrawing the review petition on May 7, 2015, the appeal to the Supreme Court was filed only on July 7, 2015.
The court observed that there were still several days available before the Supreme Court’s summer vacation commenced on May 16, 2015, for the appellant to file the appeal after withdrawing the review petition. The appeal was filed only after the court reopened on July 1, 2015. The court concluded that this timeline did not demonstrate due diligence. Furthermore, under Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act, good faith requires due care and attention, which the court found lacking in the appellant’s conduct of the case.
The Supreme Court also took note of its earlier order dated August 3, 2015, wherein the delay was condoned. However, the court clarified that this order was passed without noticing the specific bar under Section 125 of the Electricity Act regarding the maximum permissible delay. Consequently, the court recalled its previous order condoning the delay.
In light of the statutory limitation under Section 125 of the Electricity Act and the appellant’s failure to establish due diligence and good faith to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. As a result, the appeal itself was also dismissed on the ground of delay. The court made no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
