Order passed by MSERC Amenable to Appeal u/s. 111 of Electricity Act as No Natural Justice Violation or Jurisdictional Error Found: Meghalaya HC [Read Order]
The High Court held that the impugned order can be challenged through an appeal under Section 111 of Electricity Act due to absence of violation of natural justice principles, etc
![Order passed by MSERC Amenable to Appeal u/s. 111 of Electricity Act as No Natural Justice Violation or Jurisdictional Error Found: Meghalaya HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/14/2044044-meghalaya-high-court-natural-justice-taxscan.webp "Order passed by MSERC Amenable to Appeal u/s. 111 of Electricity Act as No Natural Justice Violation or Jurisdictional Error Found: Meghalaya HC [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in the month of June, it was held that the order passed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) is amenable to an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as there is no breach of the principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or any patent illegality apparent on the face of...
In a recent ruling passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in the month of June, it was held that the order passed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) is amenable to an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as there is no breach of the principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or any patent illegality apparent on the face of the order.
In this case, the petitioner is Byrnihat Industries Association, a society registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act. The petitioners have approached the High Court to contest the order passed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) on August 23, 2024. Through this order, the Commission allowed some intervention applications, withdrew its earlier orders from 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024, and decided to hear the matter afresh to fix electricity tariffs for the years 2024–2025 and 2026–2027 under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
It is also vital to note that two other writ petitions have been combined in this case, as they have similar issues. The main respondent in all three writ petitions is MSERC.
One of the issues in this case was whether the writ petition was sustainable due to the presence of an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Advocate General, by relying on the Order dated 31-07-2024, passed in WP(C). No. 191 of 2024 Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. MePDCL, contended that due to the presence of an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the writ court would exercise self-restraint when a statutory remedy is available.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act does not bar the invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The counsel, by relying on the Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, contended that the presence of an alternative remedy does bar the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The bench, by going through the impugned order, noted that there were no exceptional circumstances such as a breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or clear illegality. If the above factors were present, the appeal remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act would be ineffective.
The High Court held that the impugned order can be challenged through an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The High Court, comprising acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
