State Commission - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes

1Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes

The Supreme Court affirmed that the electricity tariff and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are not purely private contracts. Under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, they must be reviewed and approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. A generating company and distribution licensee cannot unilaterally set or modify tariffs without the regulatory commission's mandatory approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a dispute over the tariff payable for electricity supplied by M/s. KKK Hydro Power Limited. The company initially established a 3 MW hydro plant under a 2000 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a fixed tariff of ₹2.50/kWh. In 2007, it augmented the project's capacity to 4.90 MW. A new PPA was executed in 2008 for the revised capacity, but it ret...

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...