The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot exercise adjudicatory functions unless its bench includes a member with legal qualifications, setting aside an order dated 22 December 2025 that denied a review petition concerning the tapping of a dedicated 66 KV line. The judgment clarifies the compositional requirement for tribunals exercising judicial power under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Ambey Industries, sought an electricity connection from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) in 2022. PSPCL decided to release electricity connection to the sixth respondent, M/s Lord Mahavir Industries Private Limited, by tapping the existing 66 KV transmission line that had been set up at the petitioner’s cost when it applied for the connection. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under Regulations 64, 68, 69, 71 and 72 of Chapter XIII of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005 (the Business Regulations). The Commission dismissed the petition vide order dated 22 December 2025.
Key Facts
- The petitioner incurred costs to set up the dedicated 66 KV transmission line for its own electricity connection application in 2022.
- PSPCL’s decision to allow the sixth respondent to tap that line was made without the petitioner’s consent.
- The petitioner’s review petition was filed under the Business Regulations, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to absence of a legal member on the Commission bench.
- At the time of the impugned order, the Commission’s quorum consisted of the Chairperson and one technical member, both from engineering backgrounds.
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association, (2018) 6 SCC 21, which holds that a validly constituted Commission must have a member from the legal field for adjudicatory functions.
- The Commission contended that the petition fell under its regulatory, not adjudicatory, jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Business Regulations.
- The impugned order was passed on 22 December 2025.
- The High Court reserved judgment on 6 August 2026 and pronounced it on 21 September 2026.
Procedural History
- 07 March 2005: Notification of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005.
- 2022: Petitioner applied for electricity connection from PSPCL and set up the dedicated 66 KV line.
- 22 December 2025: Commission passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner’s review petition.
- 06 August 2026: Judgment reserved by the High Court.
- 21 September 2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22 December 2025, to have the matter remanded to the Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and to recover costs of litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether all adjudicatory functions of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission must be performed by a Bench that includes at least one member possessing legal qualifications, such as a judicial officer or a person with substantial experience in the practice of law eligible for appointment as a High Court or District Judge.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Commission, as a composite body tasked with advisory, regulatory and adjudicatory functions under the Electricity Act, 2003, must have a legal member on its bench whenever it exercises adjudicatory power. Relying on State of Gujarat v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association, they contended that the impugned order, which decided a dispute between a consumer and a generating company over tapping a dedicated line, was an adjudicatory act and thus coram non judice in the absence of a legal member.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the Commission maintained that the petition was filed under Section 64 of the Business Regulations, which pertains solely to regulatory functions, and that adjudicatory functions under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 arise only in disputes between licensees and generating companies. Since the petitioner is a consumer, the Commission was exercising only regulatory authority, and the presence of a legal member was not required. They further argued that the Utility Users’ Welfare Association precedent was limited to the constitutional validity of the Commission’s composition and did not apply to the present factual matrix.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the Commission is a statutory tribunal created under the Electricity Act, 2003, and that its proceedings are governed by the Business Regulations. It observed that the impugned order decided a dispute concerning the tapping of a dedicated 66 KV line, which is not a function listed under Section 86(1) of the Act (such as tariff determination, licensing, or fee levy) but rather a adjudication of a private right.
"The impugned order does not fall under any of these categories, as it simply decides the dispute concerning tapping of an existing dedicated line and does not pertain to any of these powers/functions." The Court then referred to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Utility Users’ Welfare Association that, once a tribunal assumes the 'trappings of the court' and performs judicial functions, the presence of a legally qualified member becomes necessary to uphold the principles of separation of powers and judicial review, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. "The absence of a member having knowledge of law would make the composition of the State Commission such as would make it incapable of performing the functions under Section 86(1)(f) of the said Act." The Court emphasized that the requirement is not limited to Section 86(1)(f) alone but extends to all adjudicatory functions of the Commission. It held that, for any adjudicatory function, the Bench must necessarily include at least one member who is or has been holding judicial office or is a person with professional qualifications and substantial experience in the practice of law, qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge. "We are, thus, of the unequivocal view that for all adjudicatory functions the Bench must necessarily have at least one member, who is or has been holding a judicial office or is a person possessing professional qualifications with substantial experience in the practice of law and who has the requisite qualifications to have been appointed as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge." Applying this principle, the Court found that the impugned order, passed by a Bench consisting only of the Chairperson and a technical member, lacked the requisite legal expertise and was therefore without jurisdiction. The order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 22 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission for fresh adjudication. No monetary relief was granted; the petitioner succeeds on the jurisdictional issue, and the Commission must constitute a Bench with at least one legally qualified member before proceeding further.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legal Expertise Mandatory for Adjudicatory Tribunals
The judgment establishes that any tribunal exercising adjudicatory functions under a statutory scheme must include a member with legal qualifications on its bench. Practitioners must verify the composition of the tribunal before challenging its orders, as an absence of a legal member renders the order coram non judice and liable to be set aside.
- Check the governing statute for adjudicatory jurisdiction.
- Confirm whether the tribunal’s rules require a legal member for adjudicatory proceedings.
- Raise the objection at the earliest opportunity to avoid waiver.
Scope of Section 86(1)(f) Electricity Act, 2003
While Section 86(1)(f) specifically governs disputes between licensees and generating companies, the Court’s reasoning extends the legal-member requirement to all adjudicatory functions of the Commission. This broadens the applicability of the Utility Users’ Welfare Association principle beyond the narrow factual matrix considered by the Supreme Court.
- The legal-member requirement is not confined to licensing disputes.
- Any adjudicatory act by the Commission triggers the compositional rule.
- The principle applies to review, revision and other quasi-judicial proceedings under the Business Regulations.
Remand for Fresh Adjudication
When an order is set aside for lack of jurisdiction, the Court’s standard remedy is to remit the matter to the original tribunal for reconsideration after curing the defect. Here, the Commission must reconstitute its Bench with a legal member before re-hearing the petition.
- The remand is limited to curing the jurisdictional defect; the Commission retains discretion on the merits.
- Parties should be prepared to re-present evidence and arguments before the newly constituted Bench.
- Costs of the initial proceeding may be awarded in the remand proceedings at the tribunal’s discretion.
