Tribunal Allows Impleadment Of Maithan Alloys As Co-Appellant, Says Consumer Association Can Challenge Tariff Orders Affecting Its Members
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has held that Damodar Valley Power Consumers’ Association, a body representing high voltage electricity consumers in the Damodar Valley region, falls within the expression “person aggrieved” under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is competent to maintain appeals against tariff orders passed by electricity regulatory commissions.
A Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Seema Gupta and Judicial Member Virender Bhat dismissed a batch of applications filed by Damodar Valley Corporation seeking dismissal of five pending tariff appeals on the ground that the consumer association lacked locus standi.
At the same time, the Tribunal allowed applications filed by Damodar Valley Power Consumers’ Association seeking impleadment of M/s Maithan Alloys Ltd. as appellant No. 2 in the pending appeals.
Background
The order was passed in a batch of five appeals filed by Damodar Valley Power Consumers’ Association challenging various tariff orders relating to generation tariff of power projects owned and operated by Damodar Valley Corporation.
The appeals arose from orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission. The tariff orders under challenge concerned power supplied by DVC and its impact on high voltage consumers.
When the appeals came up for final hearing in March 2025, DVC raised an objection to their maintainability. It contended that the Association itself was not a consumer of electricity and therefore could not be treated as an “aggrieved person” under Section 111 of the Electricity Act.
DVC accordingly filed applications seeking dismissal of the appeals.
In response, the Association filed applications seeking impleadment of Maithan Alloys Ltd., one of its member-consumers, as appellant No. 2. The Association submitted that the impleadment was being sought by way of abundant caution and that Maithan Alloys would not raise any new or contrary issue on merits.
DVC’s Objection
DVC argued that the appeals suffered from an inherent jurisdictional defect because they had been instituted by a party which was not itself aggrieved by the tariff orders.
It submitted that the Association was a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and was a distinct juristic person separate from its members. Since it did not purchase electricity for its own use from DVC, it was neither a “consumer” under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act nor an aggrieved person under Section 111.
DVC further argued that impleadment of Maithan Alloys at such a belated stage could not cure the defect. According to DVC, a new appellant could not be added years after expiry of limitation merely to save appeals which were allegedly not maintainable from inception.
The West Bengal Commission also supported the objection and submitted that adding Maithan Alloys at the stage of final hearing would create a retrospective challenge to old tariff orders and disturb regulatory certainty.
Association’s Stand
The Association argued that it was specifically incorporated to safeguard the rights and interests of electricity consumers in Eastern India.
It submitted that its members are high voltage consumers of electricity supplied by DVC and that tariff orders directly affect their financial interests. Since the impugned tariff determinations ultimately impact consumer tariff, the Association was competent to challenge such orders before APTEL.
The Association also pointed out that it had previously been permitted by APTEL to maintain several appeals against tariff orders, including Appeal Nos. 862 of 2023, 13 of 2024, 165 of 2024, 345 of 2024 and 347 of 2024. It argued that DVC had accepted those orders and was barred by issue estoppel from raising the same objection again.
APTEL Interprets “Any Person Aggrieved”
The Tribunal examined Section 111 of the Electricity Act, which allows “any person aggrieved” by an order of an adjudicating officer or appropriate commission to prefer an appeal before APTEL.
It noted that the word “person” under Section 2(49) of the Act includes a company, association, body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and artificial juridical persons.
The Tribunal observed that while an association can qualify as a “person”, it must still show that it is aggrieved by the order challenged.
Explaining the expression “aggrieved”, APTEL held that it means a person who is wronged, harmed, affected or injured by the order. Therefore, a party filing an appeal must establish how the impugned order affects its rights or interests.
Tariff Orders Affect Consumers Directly
The Tribunal observed that tariff orders generally affect two classes of persons: the generating, transmission or distribution entity whose tariff is determined, and the consumers who are required to bear the tariff.
Although the Association itself did not fall in the first category, the Tribunal examined whether it could represent the second category.
APTEL noted that the Association is a Section 8 company and a non-profit body. Its memorandum of association specifically records objects such as protecting the rights and interests of electricity consumers, studying cost of electricity, striving for fair pricing, promoting reliable supply and taking measures for reduction of electricity cost for the benefit of consumers.
The Tribunal also noted that membership of the Association is open to persons and entities consuming high voltage electricity generated in and around the Damodar Valley region.
On this basis, APTEL held that the Association is effectively an association of high voltage electricity consumers receiving electricity from DVC.
Association Held Competent To Maintain Tariff Appeals
The Tribunal held that where consumers supplied by DVC are affected by a tariff order, the Association comprising those consumers would also fall within the ambit of “person aggrieved” under Section 111 of the Electricity Act.
It therefore rejected DVC’s contention that the Association lacked locus standi.
APTEL distinguished its earlier decision in Surat Citizens’ Council Trust, observing that in that case the trust deed did not contain any object relating to electricity supply or public utility services. In contrast, the Damodar Valley Power Consumers’ Association had been formed specifically to protect the interests of electricity consumers.
DVC Barred By Issue Estoppel
The Tribunal also accepted the Association’s argument on issue estoppel.
It noted that in several earlier appeals filed by the same Association against tariff orders, APTEL had granted leave after holding the Association to be a “person aggrieved” under Section 111. DVC was a respondent in those proceedings and had not challenged those orders.
Relying on the doctrine of issue estoppel, APTEL held that once the issue had already been decided against DVC in earlier proceedings and accepted by it, DVC could not raise the same objection again at the stage of final disposal of the present appeals.
Impleadment Of Maithan Alloys Allowed
Although APTEL held that the Association itself was competent to maintain the appeals, it also allowed impleadment of Maithan Alloys Ltd. as appellant No. 2.
The Tribunal held that the impleadment had been sought by way of abundant caution and could be allowed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Addressing the limitation objection, APTEL referred to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It held that where omission to include a party was due to a good faith mistake, the court may direct that the proceeding shall relate back to an earlier date.
The Tribunal found that the Association had been participating in tariff proceedings and regularly filing appeals after obtaining leave from APTEL. Therefore, it was under a bona fide impression that the appeals were maintainable in its own name.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that impleadment of Maithan Alloys would relate back to the date of institution of the appeals.
DVC’s Dismissal Applications Rejected
APTEL allowed the impleadment applications filed by the Association and dismissed the applications filed by DVC seeking dismissal of the appeals.
The Association was directed to file amended memo of parties within two weeks, and the appeals were listed for further hearing.
Key Takeaway
The order is significant for electricity tariff litigation because it recognises that a consumer association formed to protect the interests of electricity consumers can be treated as a “person aggrieved” under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The ruling clarifies that the right to appeal against tariff orders is not confined only to individual consumers or licensees. A representative association of consumers may also maintain an appeal where the tariff order directly impacts the interests of its members.
The order also reinforces that once the maintainability of an appeal by such association has been accepted in previous proceedings between the same parties, the issue cannot be repeatedly reopened at a later stage.