NEW DELHI. The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), New Delhi, for reopening a matter that had already been conclusively settled by the apex court. The case concerned the recovery of Sinking Fund through electricity tariffs, an issue addressed in APTEL’s 2019 order and subsequently settled through a binding Supreme Court judgment under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Court observed that APTEL had acted beyond its authority by entertaining a review petition in 2024, despite the legal position having already been established.
Hearing an appeal filed by Damodar Valley Corporation against APTEL’s 2024 order, the Supreme Court termed the tribunal’s approach a breach of judicial discipline and strongly disapproved of its attempt to revisit a settled issue. The Court remarked that APTEL had gone “haywire” in allowing the review, emphasising that tribunals are bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. Taking a serious view of the matter, the apex court imposed costs of ₹3.5 lakh, reinforcing the principle that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies cannot reopen issues contrary to binding precedents.
