energy disputes - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled that Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) lack jurisdiction to entertain petitions solely based on public interest under the Electricity Act, 2003. It held that franchisees, as agents of distribution licensees, are not directly regulated by ERCs, and investigations under Section 128 must target licensees, not franchisees. The Court emphasized that ERCs cannot micromanage franchisee agreements, as their regulatory oversight is limited to licensees. The judgment clarified that contractual disputes between licensees and franchisees fall outside ERCs' adjudicatory scope under Section 86(1)(f). The appeal was allowed, setting aside APTEL's order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Torrent Power Limited (appellant) and the Uttar Pradesh Elec...

The Supreme Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) can exercise regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to impose compensation for delays, even without specific regulations under Section 178. It clarified that CERC’s orders under Section 79 are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, not through writ petitions unless jurisdictional or constitutional issues arise. The Court emphasized that regulatory gaps can be addressed via Section 79, distinguishing it from legislative rule-making under Section 178. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy existed. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) and Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company L...

Tag: energy disputes

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulators in Franchisee Disputes

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”