The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from ‘Change in Law’ events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal.
Facts Of The Case:
GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL’s costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL was entitled to relief and directed that the available coal, and the extra cost of buying more expensive coal to cover the shortfall, must be shared pro-rata by all three utilities based on their power share. Haryana and GRIDCO appealed, arguing the coal linkage was specifically for their power supply and the cost burden should not be shared. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) upheld the CERC’s order, leading these utilities to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The dispute originated with GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) filing Petition No. 79/MP/2013 before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) against the Haryana Utilities, seeking compensation for ‘Change in Law’ events. The CERC, in its order dated 3rd February 2016, allowed certain claims and devised a compensation mechanism. Subsequently, a clarification was sought by GKEL through Petition No. 105/MP/2017, which the CERC disposed of on 20th March 2018, directing pro-rata cost-sharing. Aggrieved, the Haryana Utilities and later GRIDCO filed appeals (Appeal Nos. 135 of 2018 and 54 of 2019) before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The APTEL, vide a common judgment dated 20th December 2019, dismissed both appeals and upheld the CERC’s order. This led to the filing of the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Enhances Compensation: Income Tax Returns Must Be Considered for Accident Claims
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the appeals challenged well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact by two expert statutory bodies, the CERC and APTEL, and emphasized that its power to intervene under Section 125 of the Electricity Act is limited to substantial questions of law. The Court reiterated the principle of judicial restraint, stating it would be slow to interfere with the decisions of expert regulators unless they were perverse, arbitrary, or violated statutory provisions. It upheld the core finding that the coal linkage was allocated to the power project as a whole, not to specific Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), making the pro-rata apportionment of coal and resultant additional costs among all three beneficiary utilities equitable and legally sound. The Court also noted and disapproved of the conduct of the Haryana Utilities, characterizing their shifting stance as an instance of “approbation and reprobation.”
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the Haryana Utilities and GRIDCO. The Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) dated 20th December 2019, which had affirmed the orders of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). Consequently, the CERC’s directive for the pro-rata apportionment of both the linkage coal and the additional costs incurred due to ‘Change in Law’ events among all three power procurers—Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar—was sustained as legally sound and equitable.
Case Details:
Case Title: Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others vs. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others Citation: 2025 INSC 1079 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020 Date of Judgement: September 8, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here