Okay, I will provide a summary based on the provided case information. Please note that the provided information is incomplete and appears to be a section title from the Electricity Act, not a full case citation. Therefore, the summary will be based on the assumption that the case concerns the interpretation and application of Section 108(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. I will create a hypothetical scenario for the sake of demonstrating the format.

Short Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of Section 108(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the Central Government's power to issue directions to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The holding clarifies the scope and limitations of this power, emphasizing that such directions must be consistent with the Act's objectives and cannot override the CERC's statutory functions.

Facts

A power generation company (the Petitioner) challenged a direction issued by the Central Government to the CERC, instructing the CERC to reconsider a tariff determination order. The Petitioner argued that the direction was arbitrary and interfered with the CERC's independent regulatory function. The Central Government (the Respondent) contended that the direction was issued in the public interest to ensure affordable electricity tariffs and was within its powers under Section 108(1).

Issues

1. Whether the Central Government's direction to the CERC under Section 108(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, was valid.
2. Whether the direction infringed upon the CERC's statutory independence and regulatory functions.
3. Whether the direction was issued in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner argued that:

1. The Central Government's direction was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis.
2. The direction effectively overturned the CERC's tariff order without due process.
3. Section 108(1) should be interpreted narrowly to prevent undue interference with the CERC's regulatory independence.
4. The direction would negatively impact investment in the power sector by creating uncertainty.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent argued that:

1. The direction was issued in the public interest to ensure affordable electricity tariffs for consumers.
2. Section 108(1) grants the Central Government broad powers to issue directions to the CERC on matters of policy.
3. The direction was consistent with the objectives of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly promoting competition and protecting consumer interests.
4. The direction did not amount to an overturning of the CERC's order but merely a request for reconsideration.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that Section 108(1) allows the Central Government to issue directions to the CERC, but this power is not unfettered. The directions must be on matters of policy involving public interest and must be consistent with the objectives of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court emphasized the importance of the CERC's regulatory independence and held that the Central Government's directions cannot override the CERC's statutory functions or interfere with its quasi-judicial decision-making process. The Court examined the specific direction issued and found that it lacked sufficient justification and unduly interfered with the CERC's tariff determination.

Conclusion

The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner. The Central Government's direction to the CERC was quashed. The Court emphasized that while the Central Government has the power to issue directions under Section 108(1), such power must be exercised judiciously and within the bounds of the Electricity Act, 2003, respecting the CERC's regulatory independence.