LLM Practical training: Six Case Studies on Administrative Authorities in Public Utilities

Here are Six recent Supreme Court case studies related to Administrative Authorities in Public Utilities in India:

Case Study 1: Supreme Court on CERC Tariff Regulations and Contractual Obligations (2025)

• Case Summary: The Supreme Court ruled on whether the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's (CERC) 2019 Regulations capping free power supply at 13% could override pre-existing contracts allowing higher free power supply.

• Judgment: The Court held that CERC's tariff regulations do not override the Implementation Agreement allowing free power beyond 13%. The Court emphasized the sanctity of contracts and directed that the High Court should not interfere in matters exclusive to the specialized regulator (CERC).

• Significance: Affirms the autonomy of CERC in tariff regulation and respects contractual freedom in public utility agreements.

• Date: July 16, 2025

• Reference: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. Vs JSW HYDRO ENERGY LIMITED & ORS.2025 INSC 857

• Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12883/2024.

Case Study 2: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to TRAI Tariff Regulations (2024)

• Case Summary: The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation challenging the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) tariff orders related to broadcasting and cable services.

• Judgment: The Court held that challenges to tariff orders should be made before the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), not directly before constitutional courts. The Court upheld Kerala High Court’s view limiting jurisdiction accordingly while keeping open the possibility of future appeals under Section 18 of TRAI Act.

• Significance: Reinforces statutory authority of TRAI and procedural channeling of disputes regarding subordinate legislation in telecom utilities.

• Date: November 29, 2024

• Reference: Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

• Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

  Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

  Citation: MANU/SCOR/134339/2024

• Read full judgment here: Click here.

• Case Study 3: Powers of Pollution Control Boards

  DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE Vs LODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD. ETC.{2025 INSC 923}
  Facts: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices to residential and commercial entities for operating without mandatory consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. These entities challenged the notices before the Delhi High Court, arguing the DPCC had no statutory power to levy compensatory damages or demand bank guarantees.
  Legal Issue:
  Can Pollution Control Boards impose compensatory damages or demand bank guarantees under Sections 33A (Water Act) and 31A (Air Act) for environmental violations, or is this considered punitive action requiring judicial process?
  Court Holding:
  The Supreme Court distinguished between punitive penalties and compensatory damages. It held that Boards can issue directions for restitution and compensation as remedial measures under Sections 33A and 31A, but the power must be guided by transparency and subordinate legislation ensuring principles of natural justice. Penal action (fines, imprisonment) must only follow statutory procedures and judicial determination.

  Case Study 4: Application of Polluter Pays Principle

  Facts:
  Show cause notices were issued based on Ministry of Environment directives to entities operating without environmental consents, with the DPCC demanding payment of damages and bank guarantees as conditions for giving consent. This was challenged as ultra vires the statutory powers under the Air and Water Acts.
  Legal Issue:
  Does the 'Polluter Pays' principle justify environmental regulators in demanding restitutive payments or security like bank guarantees from polluters as a preventive measure, even in absence of direct statutory penalty provisions?
  Court Holding:
  The Supreme Court affirmed that the 'Polluter Pays' principle is assimilated in Indian law, empowering boards to direct preventive and remedial payments under Sections 33A and 31A. The distinction is that such payments must be compensatory—restoring or preventing environmental harm—not punitive, and must follow fair and transparent processes, with proper guidelines in subordinate legislation.

  Case Study 5: Judicial Interpretation vs. Regulatory Action

  Facts:
  Several single judge bench decisions (e.g., Splendor Landbase Ltd. v. DPCC) found the DPCC could not collect penalties or damages without express statutory power. The Division Bench affirmed this, restricting Board powers to initiating complaints for penalties before courts, not levying them directly.
  Legal Issue:
  Can environmental regulators take ex-ante action for potential environmental damage, or must all compensatory actions await court processes under penalty chapters of pollution laws?
  Court Holding:
  The Supreme Court set aside restrictive High Court interpretations, clarifying Boards' powers to act directly for environmental restoration or compensation through restitutionary directions. However, punitive penalties must still be imposed by courts or adjudicating officers. The Boards' powers derive from statutory mandates under amended Water and Air Acts, supported by environmental jurisprudence, and must be exercised with procedural fairness and transparency.

  Case Study 6: Statutory Amendments and Regulatory Authority

  Facts:
  The case analyzed recent amendments to Water and Air Acts (2024), including the establishment of Adjudicating Officers and decriminalization of certain offences, which introduced non-judicial, administrative mechanisms for imposing penalties.
  Legal Issue:
  Does the creation of Adjudicating Officers and non-criminal penalties undermine or overlap Pollution Control Boards’ authority to impose compensatory measures under Sections 33A and 31A?
  Court Holding:
  The Supreme Court clarified there is no conflict: Boards can still direct payment of environmental damages for restoration and prevention, while Adjudicating Officers impose penalties for statutory offences. The compensatory action by Boards is a restorative remedy, not a punishment, and thus distinct from penal measures under the new amendments.

           

Print Page