- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
- in India
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Real Estate and Construction, Technology, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives and HR
The High Court of Bombay through its judgement dated 03.11.2025 in O2 Renewable Energy VII Private Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.1, held that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ("MERC") cannot amend or review a MultiYear Tariff Order ("MYT Order") without providing an opportunity of hearing to all affected stakeholders. It observed that when due procedure was followed by the MERC while passing the MYT Order, the same procedure ought to have been followed while undertaking its review.
The High Court held that the revision of the MYT Order was not confined to the correction of any arithmetical or typographical mistake, accidental slip or omission, rather the modifications had far-reaching implications on all stakeholders, including consumers.
The High Court further noted that Regulation 28(f) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2024 clearly stipulates that where commission is of the opinion to grant review, it should do the same, however, no review shall be done without prior notice to opposite parties.
The High Court further held that even assuming the MERC's function in passing the MYT Order was regulatory rather than adjudicatory, the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to stakeholders is mandatory. It held that the inherent powers cannot be invoked to bypass the procedure prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Electricity Act") or the applicable regulations.
Footnote
1 WPL-19437-2025 ORS
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.
