From landmark court rulings to major regulatory reforms, India's power and energy sector continues to evolve at pace. Our latest sectoral update brings together key legal developments, policy shifts, and high-impact judgments from June 2025 across the Energy & Electricity ecosystem.
JUDGMENTS
1. Case Title: Surat Citizens Council Trust v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission
Citation: Review Petition No. 1 of 2025 in Appeal No. 341 of 2017
Court/Tribunal: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
Decided on: 08 April 2025
Brief Facts
Surat Citizens Council Trust filed a review petition against APTEL's earlier dismissal of its appeal challenging tariff orders issued by GERC. The Trust, not being a direct consumer or having statutory authorization to represent consumers, had raised the challenge on broad public interest grounds.
Issues:
- Whether a public interest organization without direct consumption of electricity or statutory representation has locus standi under the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Whether a review petition can be entertained in the absence of a clear error or omission in the original judgment.
Judgment:
APTEL dismissed the review petition, holding that the Trust lacked locus standi under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as it was not a direct consumer nor authorized by affected consumers. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory standing requirements are substantive and cannot be bypassed through generalized public interest claims. It reiterated that review is not a forum for rehearing decided issues unless there is a glaring error or omission.
The ruling reinforces the need for public interest groups to establish direct statutory entitlement or legal injury to maintain proceedings under the Electricity Act. It curtails attempts to invoke public interest without clear legal standing and underscores the importance of timely and procedurally compliant participation in regulatory processes.
2. Case Title: K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Citation: Appeal No. 224 of 2016
Court/Tribunal: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
Decided on: 28 April 2025
Brief Facts
K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. sought tariff determination for a 7 MW captive generating unit that was not connected to the grid and operated without a valid Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) denied the claim, prompting the present appeal.
Issues:
- Whether a captive generating unit without grid connectivity and a valid PPA qualifies for tariff determination under Regulation 30 of the UPERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005.
- Whether references to non-grid-connected capacity in a PPA can justify inclusion for tariff calculation.
Judgment:
APTEL dismissed the appeal, holding that tariff determination under Regulation 30 requires both physical grid connectivity and a valid PPA. The 7 MW captive unit, used solely for internal consumption and lacking a contractual arrangement for supply to the grid, was deemed ineligible. The Tribunal relied on UPERC's 2007 clarification and the precedent in Mawana Sugar Mills, emphasizing that tariff determination must be based on actual, verifiable contracted supply. Misstatements or references in PPAs cannot override operational facts.
The decision reinforces that only grid-connected generating units with valid PPAs are entitled to tariff determination. It stresses procedural integrity and contractual precision, discouraging speculative claims or misclassification of captive capacity. For generators, the ruling highlights the need to segregate captive and grid-connected capacities in contractual documentation. For regulators and DISCOMs, it mandates reliance on actual operational data and enforceable agreements when issuing tariff orders.
3. Case Title: Power Grid Corp. v. MPPTCL
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1128
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: 15 May 2025
Brief Facts
Power Grid and MPPTCL disputed over compensation for delayed transmission assets under WRSS-XIV/XVI schemes. Power Grid sought COD approval and tariff from CERC, which partly allowed compensation. MPPTCL challenged this before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, claiming CERC exceeded its powers and rewrote contractual terms. Though an appeal to APTEL was available, the High Court admitted the writ, citing jurisdictional overreach and breach of natural justice as exceptions under the Whirlpool doctrine.
Issue:
- Whether CERC's actions under Section 79(1) must comply with the statutory regulations framed under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Whether CERC's powers under Section 79 are regulatory or adjudicatory in nature, particularly regarding inter-state transmission and tariff determination.
- Whether the compensation granted by CERC for delay is a regulatory or adjudicatory act, and what level of natural justice applies.
- Whether the High Court was right in entertaining MPPTCL's writ petition despite an available appellate remedy under Section 111.
Judgement:
The Court reaffirmed that Section 79(1) grants CERC both regulatory and adjudicatory powers. These must conform to Section 178 regulations where they exist, but CERC is not precluded from acting under Section 79 in their absence. The Court further held that CERC's approval of COD and compensation falls under its regulatory powers, which include case-specific directions. The function is not purely adjudicatory, and CERC can provide remedies necessary to fulfil its mandate under the Act.
Though CERC declined to condone the delay, it rightly permitted Power Grid to claim compensation for pre-COD expenses like IDC, IEDC, and liquidated damages. The respondent's contention that such compensation was outside the regulations was rejected.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for entertaining the writ despite a clear alternative remedy via APTEL under Section 111. The exceptions under Whirlpool (jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice) did not apply here, as the orders were within CERC's jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order admitting the writ petition and restored the authority of the CERC's original orders. It held that MPPTCL should have availed the appellate remedy before APTEL, and no grounds existed for direct writ jurisdiction.
4. Case Title: Adyah Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC & Ors.
Citation: Appeal Nos. 289/2022, 290–291/2022, 46–48/2023
Court/Tribunal: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
Decided on: 30 May 2025
Brief Facts:
Adyah Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. installed additional solar modules to achieve a declared CUF of 27.76%, higher than the normative CUF of 19%. These modules attracted additional financial burden due to the imposition of Safeguard Duty and IGST. The expenses were incurred before the Commercial Operation Date (COD). The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) rejected the company's claim for Change in Law relief and carrying cost, leading to the present appeal before APTEL.
Issues :
- Whether additional modules installed for achieving higher CUF are eligible for Change in Law relief.
- Whether Safeguard Duty and IGST imposed on such modules qualify as Change in Law events.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to carrying cost due to delay in reimbursement.
Judgment:
APTEL allowed the claims, holding that the commission erred in denying the Appellant's claim for reimbursement of safeguard duty and IGST on additional modules. The additional modules are part of the project's economic structure and eligible for Change in Law relief. It further clarified that the PPA does not restrict relief to only the original capacity. Since the duty and tax were imposed post-bid and before COD, reimbursement was justified. APTEL also upheld the claim for carrying cost, citing the principle of restitution and reliance on the Parampujya judgment.
5. Case Title: Karnataka Vidhyuth Sene & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Citation: WP 8654/2025 c/w WP 9437/2025, WP 12211/2025
Court/Tribunal: Karnataka High Court
Decided on: 17 June 2025
A batch of petitions was filed challenging the Karnataka government's decision and BESCOM's tender mandating the installation of smart prepaid meters for electricity consumers. The petitioners argue that this move violates the KERC regulations dated 06.03.2024, which stipulate that smart meters are optional (except for temporary connections). They further contend that the mandatory rollout imposes excessive financial burden on consumers and lacks transparency in procurement, as smart meters cost significantly more in Karnataka compared to other states.
The petitioners also criticized the hasty implementation of the scheme under the RDSS (Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme) without proper adoption or assistance from the central government, and alleged that the tender process benefited only one bidder. BESCOM, however, clarified that smart meters are being installed only for new consumers and not for existing ones.
The High Court issued notices to BESCOM, the State Government, and other respondents, asking them to file objections within four weeks. The petitioners have sought a stay on BESCOM's circulars dated 13.02.2025 and 15.02.2025, and demanded adherence to proper public procurement norms.
6. Case Title: Hindustan Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Citation: 2025:DHC:4927; O.M.P (Comm) 6/2017
Court/Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Decided on: 09 June 2025
Brief Facts:
The Union of India ("Respondent"), through Central Organization for Modernization of Workshops ("COFMOW") in the present case issued a tender for procuring a "Double Column Guillotine Shearing Machine with Hydraulic Main Drive". The Hindustan Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. ("Petitioner") offered to sell the machine to the Respondent which was duly accepted by the Respondent, subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the acceptance letter. The machine was delivered after 3 years of the acceptance of the tender, instead of 10 months, which became a point of contention between the parties. Respondent also felt aggrieved by the quality of the machine and services rendered by the Petitioner and sought refund of the part sale consideration of Rs.1,14,63,340/- paid by it to the Petitioner along with interest. The Arbitrator passed the final award in favour of the Respondent rejecting the claims of the Petitioner. The said award was challenged by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, primarily on the ground that the Tribunal did not deal with the evidence on record and also drew incorrect conclusions dehors the evidence.
Judgment:
The court examined the arbitral award and noted that the challenge mounted by the Petitioner was based on the allegation of re-writing of the contract by the Tribunal and ignoring of material evidence to reach incorrect factual findings. In this regard the court observed that that the arbitral tribunal may have committed errors in recording some of the findings at few places, however, the dismissal of the claim was definitely on account of the Petitioner's own admission of the fact that flat guiding system was a deviation from the specified design in paragraph 3.2.3.6.
It further observed that the arbitral tribunal strictly construed the contract provisions regarding technical design specifications, and upheld the rejection, which was solely based on non-adherence of the tender specifications. Arbitral Tribunal's approach cannot be said to be non-judicious or that the arbitral tribunal travelled beyond the terms of the contract. It was not necessary that the tribunal returned a finding on each deviation item to conclude if the contract was breached. Petitioner's own admission in relation to one of the deviation items was found to be sufficient evidence by the arbitral tribunal.
It was lastly observed that a party cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award.
To read this Update in full, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
