JUDGEMENTS
- Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed & Ors.
Citation: W.P. No. 428 of 2019
Court/Tribunal: Bombay High Court
Decided On: 9 July 2025
Brief Facts:
A Writ Petition was filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging the Appellate Authority's order that had set aside a demand bill issued to Respondent No. 1 (consumer) Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed. A spot inspection was carried out in the premises of Respondent No. 1, and it was discovered that the electricity, originally sanctioned for mattress manufacturing ("industrial activity"), was being used for running a water purification plant ("commercial activity"). The MSEDCL concluded that this constituted unauthorised use under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by MSEDCL.
Issues:
- Whether the change in activity can be termed as "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Judgment:
The Court observed that to initiate an action under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, there must be unauthorized use of electricity. Further, it observed that the change in activity from manufacturing of mattresses to Aqua Purified Water Cans does not change the use of electricity and cannot be termed as unauthorized use of electricity. Moreover, the petitioners failed to file any document to prove that the activity of manufacturing mattresses was an "industrial activity" and that the activity of Water cooling or selling/packaging of water was a "commercial activity". Thus, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition and held that the order of the Appellate Authority does not require any interference. Click Here.
- Case Title: Torrent Power Limited v. U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 23514 of 2017
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 14 July 2025
Brief Facts:
A petition was filed before the UPERC by Respondent No. 4 challenging a Distribution Franchisee Agreement (DFA) entered between the appellant (distribution franchisee) and Respondent No. 3 (distribution licensee). He prayed for an investigation into the conduct of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in appointing the Appellant as a franchisee for distribution of electricity in Agra's urban area without purportedly seeking prior approval of the UPERC for transfer of its utility to the appellant.
The Appellant contended that the petition was not maintainable and that the UPERC did not have jurisdiction. However, UPERC held that the petition was maintainable on the ground of public interest and that ERCs were empowered to look into DFAs to assess the benefits of such franchisee for DISCOMs and general public. Further, the Commission also ordered investigation with respect to the Appellant's role as a Distribution Franchisee. In appeal, the APTEL observed that public interest litigations are not maintainable before ERCs, however, held that the petition filed by Respondent No.4 was maintainable as it was not in public interest. It further observed that ERCs are empowered to exercise regulatory oversight on distribution licensees.
Issues:
- Whether any individual can invoke jurisdiction of a State ERC on the plea of public interest.
- Whether a petition under Section 128 is maintainable.
- Whether ERCs have jurisdiction to review the functioning of a distribution licensee to supply electricity through a franchisee.
Judgment:
On the first issue, the Court observed that ERCs, being creatures of a statute, derive their jurisdiction and powers from the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003. Therefore, it would not be permissible for them to exercise powers not expressly vested in them. On perusal of Sections 79 and 86 of the Act, the Court noted that the jurisdiction of ERCs does not extend to cases involving consumer disputes/grievances, irrespective of whether they are raised in public interest.
On the second issue, the Court observed that unless some satisfactory grounds are given for initiating an investigation, a petition under Section 128 cannot be held maintainable. In the present case though Respondent No. 4 levelled serious allegations against Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant, he did not provide any satisfactory reasons or material to show how they were in violation of tariff orders.
On the third issue, the Court said that an ERC may not directly regulate a franchisee, but it exercises regulatory oversight over the distribution licensee's functions and duties, including the process of a distribution licensee delegating some of its functions and activities to a franchisee. Further, the Court noted that the Electricity Act, 2003 does not provide for direct regulatory oversight over distribution franchisees. Thus, only distribution licensee can be investigated and not its franchise.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by APTEL. Also, the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the UPERC was rendered insignificant. Click Here
- Case Title: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 22 July 2025
Brief Facts:
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by child activist Ridhima Pandey challenging the Government of India's approach to addressing climate change. The Court impleaded Central Electricity Authority (CEA) and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) as respondents under Sections 70 and 76 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
A petition was filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2017 raising concerns about the approval of carbon-intensive projects without proper climate impact assessments. Further, a National Climate Recovery plan and a Carbon Budget was sought to limit emissions by 2050. However, the petition was dismissed in 2019 and thereafter an appeal was filed in 2021.
On 22 July 2025, the Supreme Court considered the detailed submissions presented by the Amici Curiae. The Court was informed that power generation is responsible for 8% of carbon emissions. Based on a CEA Study it was observed that many thermal plants did not follow the required emission standards from 2022-2023. They also raised concerns regarding MoEF&CC Notification dated 11.07.2025, which diluted stricter emission norms laid down in 2015.
Issues:
- Whether all the stakeholders including the Regulatory authorities involved in the process of power generation, transmission and distribution should come together to prepare a coordinated action plan to reduce carbon emissions from the power generation sector.
Judgment:
The Court observed that various ministries tasked with environmental governance were operating in "silos" leading to a lack of coordination. It noted that regulatory bodies such as Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) face fiscal and staffing constraints and often lack access to real-time data. The Court observed that tackling emissions from power generation requires a systematic and consistent approach, involving coordination among all stakeholders – generators, regulators, policymakers, and the executive. The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Power to convene a joint meeting with the CEA and the CERC to prepare a coordinated action plan to reduce carbon emissions from the power generation sector. Click Here
- Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. JSW Hydro Energy Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 12883 of 2024
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 16 July 2025
Brief Facts:
A dispute arose from an Implementation Agreement signed between the Himachal Pradesh Government and JSW Hydro in 1999, under which JSW agreed to supply 12% free power for the first 12 years and 18% thereafter until 2051. JSW later argued that CERC Regulations, 2019 limited its obligation to 13%. The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the action of JSW of limiting free power to 13% despite the Regulation not prohibiting supply of free power beyond 13% limit. The Court said that the 13% cap applies only to tariff calculations, not to contractual obligations.
Issues:
- Whether the CERC Regulations, 2019 bar Respondent No. 1 from supplying free power to the Appellant-State beyond 13%.
- Whether Respondent No. 1 could have invoked the High Court's writ jurisdiction for aligning the Implementation Agreement with the CERC Regulations, 2019.
Judgment: The Court observed that the contract remains binding, and that regulations cannot override freely negotiated agreements with the State. The Court also criticized JSW for approaching the High Court without challenging a previous CERC order through the proper legal forum, namely the APTEL. The Court observed that Himachal Pradesh was not a power licensee but receives free electricity as royalty for allowing the use of natural resources, and such resource agreements are not governed by tariff regulations of CERC. Further, the Court observed that the Regulatory Commissions, APTEL, and the Courts must enforce these contractual obligations and ensure that their interpretation of regulations does not allow the party to circumvent and breach its contractual undertakings when the same is not intended by the regulation itself.
The Court allowed the appeal and ruled in favour of the Himachal Pradesh Government, holding that JSW Hydro Energy Ltd. must supply 18% free electricity as per the Implementation Agreement of 1999, despite the CERC regulations capping free power at 13% for tariff determination. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Click Here
- Case Title: D.B. Power Ltd. v. PTC India Ltd.
Citation: Petition No. 229/MP/2016
Court/Tribunal: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Decided On: 15 July 2025
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner DB Power Limited filed a petition under Section 79(1)(b) read with Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking adjustment of tariff on account of change in law and force majeure events affecting the project during the operating period. The Petitioner sought to be restored to the same economic position as the events had not occurred in terms of the amil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited ('TANGEDCO') Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
The Commission disallowed the claims pertaining to the Station Heat Rate (SHR) and carrying cost. Therefore, the Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commission. The APTEL set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Commission or determination of the compensation which the Petitioner was entitled to, subject to the the SHR as prescribed in the Tariff Regulations. The matter was remanded also for re- examination of issues with respect to carrying cost and increase in VAT, Entry Tax, Niryatkar.
Issues:
- Whether the Petitioner is eligible to recover the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in VAT, Entry Tax, and Niryatkar.
- Whether the Petitioner's claims pertaining to Station Heat Rate (SHR) should be allowed.
- Whether the Petitioner's claims pertaining to carrying cost should be allowed.
Judgment:
On the first issue, the Commission held that the Petitioner shall be eligible to recover the additional expenditure incurred towards the consequential increase in VAT, Entry Tax, and Niryatkar on account of increase in rates of underlying taxes and duties such as NMET, DMF, etc., which was recognized as change in law, and thereby recoverable from the Respondent.
On the second issue, the Commission observed that the Petitioner claimed a revised differential compensation on taking into consideration various components. The Commission noted that the Petitioner's claim or the methodology adopted to compute the compensation amount was not contested by the Respondent. Therefore, the Commission held that the claim was admissible.
On the third issue, the Commission observed that the actual interest rates on the working capital arranged by the Petitioner was lower than the LPS rates. Therefore, the Petitioner was permitted to claim the carrying cost at the actual rate of interest on the working capital arranged by the Petitioner.
Click here to view the full report.
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.
