Note of APTEL

Introduction

‘Tribunal’ is an administrative body established for the purpose of discharging quasi-judicial

duties. Tribunals are the quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes related to
specified matters which exercise the jurisdiction according to the Statute establishing them.
The primary reason for the creation of Tribunals was to overcome the crisis of delays and
backlogs in the administration of justice. Therefore, the Administrative Tribunals have been
established to overcome the major lacuna present in the Justice delivery system in the light of
the legal maxim Lex dilationes semper exhorret which means ‘The law always abhors delays’.

The formation of APTEL was envisaged by the Lok Sabha in August 2001 as mentioned in the
Object and Reasons of the electricity Bill wherein, this concept was brought for speedy disposal
of the cases along with the introduction of ‘technical member’ in the Tribunal to ensure the
technicality of the matters to be understood by the Tribunal during appeals from the orders of
Appropriate Commission. The finality of this concept was seen when the Ministry of Power,
Govt. of India passed a notification dated 7th April 2004 to notify its existence. The tribunal
also oversees the Regulatory Commission and their members with regards to their functioning.
It is by virtue of Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003, that an Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity having jurisdiction throughout India, is set up in Delhi to hear appeals or original
matters against the CERC or SRC or Joint Commission constituted under the Act.

There is a distinction between Article 323-A and 323-B as the former gives exclusive power to
the Parliament and the latter gives power to the concerned State Legislature which is concurrent
in nature by which the Parliament and the State Legislature can by law, constitute Tribunals
for the respective subjects specified therein. This is evident from the explanation appended to
Article 323-B of the Constitution. The provisions of both these Articles are to be given effect
irrespective of any other provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in
force

The appellate tribunal is better equipped to discharge its functions. First, it is an expert body.
While the chairman will have a judicial background, the other members would have been
secretaries to the government, dealing with economic affairs or infrastructure. In all probability,
one of the members would have a background in the power sector. Such a member with a
technical background would help the tribunal in gaining a deeper understanding of sector
issues. The composition of the tribunal ensures a more professional and balanced approach,
while the courts would have a legal background only. The appellate tribunal would also ensure
that only issues of law as are devoid of technicalities are referred to the apex court, thereby
providing another forum to address industry-specific concerns. This would mean that the high
courts, which are already burdened with pending cases, are not overburdened with regulatory
issues. In addition, the appellate tribunal would help to develop a consistent precedent in the
sector to ensure regulatory predictability, reduce regulatory risk and harmonise regulatory
enforcement across the states. This would, in turn, boost investor confidence and attract
investment in this capacity-starved sector.
Functions

To file an appeal to the APTEL, the aggrieved person has to move to APTEL within 45 days
from the passing of the order of the lower adjudicating body, however, such period can be
extended if sufficient cause for delay is observed by the Appellate Body. The matters pertaining
to administrative functions of the body are not dealt with by the Appellate Body and the same
are appealed in High Court directly as for the purposes of the APTEL, it is made only for the
matters pertaining to electricity and adjudication of rights based on it. Now, the Appeal from
APTEL lies to Supreme Court.

The Commission intends to promote competition in the market with regards to pricing and
control the quality of supply. They work on removal of institutional barriers to bridge the
demand supply gap and foster the interests of the consumers.

Authority of APTEL
As discussed by the Law Commission in their 272nd Report, every order emanating from the
Tribunal or its Appellate Forum, wherever it exists, attains finality. Any such order may be
challenged by the party aggrieved before the Division Bench of the High Court having
territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal or its Appellate Forum.

The authority with which APTEL comes into being is because it is the Central Government
which formulates the tribunal under a resolution which was passed earlier while formulating
the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 110 and clause (c) of sub-section 2 of
section 112 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), the Central Government established an
Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear appeals against
the orders of the adjudicating officer or Appropriate Commission under the said Act with effect
from the date of notification.

The Supreme Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand laid down the following
characteristics or tests to determine whether an authority is a tribunal or not:
1. Power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or statutory rule.
2. It must possess the trappings of a court and thereby be vested with the power to summon
witnesses, administer oath, compel production of evidence, etc.
3. Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence.
4. They are to exercise their functions objectively and judicially and to apply the law and
resolve disputes independently of executive policy.

5. Tribunals are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative

interference in the discharge of their judicial functions.

Administrative tribunals must act openly, fairly and impartially. They must afford a reasonable
opportunity to the parties to represent their case and adduce evidence. Thus, in State of U.P. v.
Md. Nooh where the prosecutor was also an adjudicating officer and also in Dhakeshwari Mills
where the tribunal did not disclose some evidence to the assessed which was relied upon, the
decisions were set aside.

In Union of India v. T.R. Verma the Supreme Court held the following to be part of natural
justice:
a) Party must be able to adduce all evidence being relied upon.
b) Evidence must be taken in the presence of both parties.
c) Must be given opportunity to cross- examine.

d) And no material must be relied upon without giving the party opportunity to explain the
evidence.

Tribunals are free to evolve their own method of procedure as long as they conform to the
principles of natural justice as outlined above.