37. We have examined the plea to above effect but find no merit in it. In the present case, the conclusion reached by M-DNAC has been treated more as recommendatory or advisory in nature than as a “decision” of an adjudicatory body. What is under challenge before us is the decision of the State Commission in which the advice tendered by M-DNAC stands subsumed. Pertinent to add here that even MERC has not been taking Appeal No. 35 of 2020 Page 35 of 54 the reports of M-DNAC as conclusive or binding. If an illustration in this regard were required, reference could be made to the case of Medinee (supra) wherein, by its order dated 04.02.2019, the State Commission had ignored the view formulated by M-DNAC and ruled contrarily. The practice followed shows that MERC has been entertaining objections against the dispensation by M-DNAC and, therefore, has asserted its position as the statutory authority to adjudicate on the dispute rather than abdicating its responsibility. In this view of the matter, reliance on decisions of Supreme Court reported as Naraindas Indurkhya v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(1974) 4 SCC 788], A.L. Kalra v Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd [(1984) 3 SCC 316], District Collector, Chittoor and Others v Chittoor District Groundnut Traders’ Association, Chittoor and Others [(1989) SCC 58] and Babu Verghese and Others v Bar Council of Kerala and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 422 as also a decision of House of Lords reported as Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission and Another [(1968) UKHL 6], is misplaced.”
