THE Supreme Court is quite conscious of the criticism that its decisions are supreme not because is infallible but only because it is the final Court. However, finality and closure is the expedient need in litigation. The Court has observed in the judgement of the case-Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys Limited and Others, delivered on October 30, 2026, that it is not often, it comes across orders akin to the one impugned in this case, which is in blatant breach of judicial discipline and in clear violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It raises serious doubts in our minds about independence vis-à-vis accountability. In this context, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran have quoted sagacious words of Justice Benjamin Cordozo that “a judge is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles (The Nature of the judicial process)”.

 

However, here we have a Tribunal ‘innovating at pleasure’. The impugned order was passed in a petition, seeking review of the order of the year 2019, which was allowed in 2024, after more than five years. That too, against established orders of tariff fixation under the Electricity Act, 2003, also on the strength of a SC decision in the case-Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd, and others v. Damodar Valley Corporation and others- (2018) 8 SCC 281, a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein was also a party in the earlier proceedings, which determined the tariff between April1, 2004 to March 31, 2006. In this case, the Court is concerned with the period 2009 to 2014, for which the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) fixed the tariff of DVC based on the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 and the CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009.

 

The very same issue of whether the ‘Sinking Fund’ which refers to a portion of the profit appropriated for the purpose of redeeming the bonds issued by the DVC, was entitled to be factored in the tariff of the power generated and supplied by the DVC was considered and upheld in the cited decision of the Court, which considered the issue on the basis of the enactments above referred and the Tariff Regulations of 2004. The Supreme Court has stated that the Tribunal has gone haywire; the court is apologetic for the expression but it could not find a substitute to express its angst in allowing the review, that too, when the very same issue, for the earlier years was settled by the SC in Bhaskar Sirachi case, based on which the original order was passed by the Tribunal. In this Context, the SC noticed only its decision of the case – State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2024, which specifically considered the power of review conferred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by section 22 (3) (f), which is pari materia with section 122(f) of the Electricity Act. This provision specifically States that an order, judgement or decision cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law.

 

While exercising power of review, the concerned court/tribunal cannot sit over its judgement in appeal. Noticing numerous decisions of the Supreme Court on the contours of review, the principles culled out, are available in paragraph 35 of judgement as under: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under section114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule-1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered after long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under section22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/Judgement of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (Viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review.

 

The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier. The impugned decision of the Tribunal in the present case does not fall under any of these principles. The SC has found the review to be clearly illegal, totally misplaced and blatantly in breach of judicial discipline. The Court has also emphasised the travesty insofar as violation of Article 141 of the Constitution. Our judicial system thrives on the sanctity of the decisions of the appellate, revisional and Supervisory jurisdictions to be given due weightage. Asfaras Article 141 is concerned, it is a Constitutional imprimatur, which ensures that the decisions of the highest Court of the land to be followed, without that there will be mayhem.

 

The SC has set aside the impugned decision and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal at the first instance, dated May 17, 2019. No appeals were filed against earlier orders before the SC and one of the appellants before the Tribunal had filed for review and waited for five years to get it heard. The said action was clearly an abuse of the process of law. The SC has imposed a cost of Rs two Lakh on the first respondent-Maithan Alloys Ltd. Further a public sector undertaking and “Maharatna Company” has willingly participated in an attempt to support an order, which was passed in breach of judicial discipline violating the Article 141of the Constitution. The Court imposed cost of Rs 1,50,000/- Steel Authority of India Ltd. The cost is payabe to the Damodar Valley Corporation within a month from the date of this order. Failing that 18% per annum interest will have to be paid. The SC has allowed the appeal with cost.