Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited vs H.P. State Electricity Regulatory ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2026:HHC:8409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 8610 of 2025 alongwith
connected matters
Decided on: 23rd March, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.8610 of 2025
.
M/s Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors. .....Respondents
of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.1520 of 2026
M/s Shiv Shakti Solar Power Project .....Petitioner
rt Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No. 1522 of 2026
M/s Sher-E-Punjab Solar Power Project
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No. 1003 of 2026
M/s Richmit Solar Power Project
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CWP No. 1019 of 2026
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS
2
( 2026:HHC:8409
Shri Mahunag Solar Power Project
.....Petitioner
Versus
.
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
.....Respondents
and another
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CWP No. 1519 of 2026
Siya Solar Power Project
.....Petitioner
of
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and another rt .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CWP No. 1521 of 2026
M/s Bajrang Constructions Solar Power Project
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CWP No. 11256 of 2025
M/s Chevron Hydel (P) Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd.
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. CWP No. 13220 of 2025
M/s IQU Power Company Private Limited
.....Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS
3
( 2026:HHC:8409
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
And Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. CWP No. 14042 of 2025
.
M/s Door Sanchar Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors. .....Respondents
of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. CWP No. 14086 of 2025
M/s Aleo Manali Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
rt
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. CWP No. 13223 of 2025
M/s Awa Power Company Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. CWP No. 13095 of 2025
M/s Neogal Power Company Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS
4
( 2026:HHC:8409
and Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. CWP No. 10230 of 2024
M/s Greenko HIM Kailash Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
.
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. CWP No. 2024 of 2026
M/s Hamal Hydel Project Braza Tyre.
.....Petitioner
Versus
of
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission
and Ors.
rt .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaWhether approved for
reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Mr. Suneet
Goel, Senior Advocates, Mr. Ajay
Vaidya, Ms. Shalini Thakur, Mr.
Dinkar Bhaskar, Mr. Shivalik Bhaik,
Mr. Vivek Negi, with Mr. Amit Kumar
Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent-
HPERC.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Mr.
Abhishek Verma and Mr. Saurav
Upadhyay, Advocates, for respondent-
HPSEBL.
1
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS
5
( 2026:HHC:8409
Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondents-Bonafide Himachalies
Hydro Power Developers Association in
CWP Nos. 8610/2025 & 10230/2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
.
All these petitions are based upon almost similar pleadings, claiming almost similar reliefs arising out of similar cause of actions, hence, are taken up together.
2. Grievance of the petitioners emanates from an of order passed by the respondent--Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC), Shimla on rt 23.02.2024 in Suo Motu Petition No. 08/2023, fixing normative Operation & Maintenance (O&M) charges.
Challenge has also been laid to the consequent demand notices issued to the petitioners by the respondent--
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited.
A petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was filed before the HPERC by the 'Bonafide Himachalies Hydro Power Developers Association'. This petition, bearing No. 29/2023, pertained to the adjudication of a dispute between independent power producers and the H.P. State Electricity Board Limited concerning Operation & Maintenance (O&M) charges being levied by the Board in respect of inter connection facility/bay provided to the generating companies, who had set up Small Hydro Electric ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 6 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Power Projects in the State. HPERC decided the petition on 16.10.2023, observing that the proposal to fix normative O&M charges of bay(s) was required to undergo a prior publication process by floating the proposal on the website .
of HPERC, so as to provide equal opportunity to all stakeholders to file their objections/suggestions. Pursuant to the directions issued in the order dated 16.10.2023, a proposal was placed before the Commission, which was of registered as Suo Motu Petition No. 08/2023, on the subject of Fixation of normative O&M charges to be paid by the Small rt Hydro Power Project(s) and other RE generators connected at Sub-Stations owned by the Distribution Licensee where maximum nominal voltage level at any point in such Sub-
stations does not excess 33 kV. The Commission proceed to fix normative O&M charges to be paid by Small Hydro Power Producers and other Renewable Energy Generators selling power to the Distribution Licensee, as well as Renewable Energy Developers selling power under open access for utilizing its infrastructure. HPERC invited public objections and suggestions by issuing public notices in newspapers as well as on its website. HPERC, vide its letter dated 06.11.2023, requested all major stakeholders, including the Small Hydro Project Welfare Association, State Government, Directorate of Energy HIMURJA, and the Distribution ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 7 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Licensee, to submit their objections/suggestions in terms of the aforesaid public notices. HPERC received comments/suggestions on the draft proposal from some of the stake holders. 'Bonafide Himachalies Hydro Power .
Developers Association' approached HPERC for sharing data inputs, which was allowed to be collected from HPSEBL.
Public hearing in the matter was held on 06.12.2023.
Thereafter, order was passed by HPERC on 23.02.2024 in of Suo Motu Petition No. 08/2023 fixing normative O&M charges. Petitioners are aggrieved against order dated rt 23.02.2024 passed by the HPERC in Suo Moto Petition No.8 of 2023, as also the consequent demand notices issued to them by the HPSEBL on the strength of above order.
3. According to the petitioners, HPERC lacks the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order fixing O&M charges.
The impugned order has re-written the contracts entered into between the parties fixing the O&M charges for use of interconnection facilities. It has also been submitted that though in some cases, O&M charges agreement have been entered into between parties and those agreements have been rewritten by HPERC under the impugned order, but in number of the cases, such agreements have not been executed between the parties, O&M charges could not have been fixed under the impugned order without hearing the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 8 ( 2026:HHC:8409 petitioners. As per the petitioners, in view of the grievance raised, the writ petitions are maintainable. Reliance was placed upon Haryana Power Purchase Centre Versus Sasan Power Limited and others 2 & PTC India Limited .
Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 3 as also upon Radha Krishan Industries Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 and Whirlpool Corporation Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai of and others5 on the point that alternate remedy is not a bar where order rt impugned, has been passed without jurisdiction.
Whereas, according to the respondents:- the O&M charges duly form part of tariff charges. They are a component of the aggregate revenue requirement provided under Rule 34 of the H.P.E.R.C (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Hydro Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2024. The Rule is as under:-
"34. Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR). 34.1 The ARR of a hydro generating station shall comprise of the following elements: (a) Operation and Maintenance Expenses; b) Return on Equity Capital; c) Tax on Return on Equity; d) Interest on Loan Capital; e) Interest on Working Capital; and f) Depreciation."2
(2024) 1 SCC 247 3 (2010) 4 SCC 603 4 (2021) 6 SCC 771 5 (1998) 8 SCC 1 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 9 ( 2026:HHC:8409 The HPERC (Promotion of Generation from the Renewable Energy Sources and Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination) Regulations, 2017 provides: -
"12. Tariff design.- (1) The single part levellised tariff structure .
shall be followed for the renewable energy technologies:
Provided that for renewable energy technologies having fuel cost component, like biomass power projects and non-fossil fuel based cogeneration, single part tariff with two components, i.e. fixed cost component and fuel cost component, shall be determined. (a) The following fixed cost components shall be included for determining the tariff.- (b) Return on equity; (c) Interest on loan of capital; (d) Depreciation; (e) Interest on working capital; and (e) Operation and maintenance expenses.
28. Operation and maintenance expenses.-- (1) Operation and maintenance expenses mean the expenditure rt incurred on operation and maintenance of the project, or part thereof, and includes, without limitation, the expenditure on manpower, establishment (including employees expense, administrative and general expenses), repairs, spares, consumables, insurance and overheads as well as the taxes, duties and other levies on any or all such activities.
(2) Operation and maintenance expenses shall be determined for the tariff period based on normative operation and maintenance expenses specified in Chapter-V of these Regulations for the small hydro projects and as stipulated in relevant orders of the Commission for other renewable technologies.
State Commission or Central Commission, as the case may be, determines tariff under the governing law primarily the Electricity Act, 2003. O&M charges are recognized components of Tariff, alongwith (a) return on equity (b) interest on loans (c) depreciation (d) interest on working capital. The Commission generally specifies normative O&M expenses through tariff regulations and ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 10 ( 2026:HHC:8409 allows excalation factors i.e. inflation linked increase year to year. The Commission may also consider actual against norms depending upon tariff framework. The Commission issues Tariff regulations as per its Regulatory framework .
i.e. Multi Year Tariff Regulations which include (a) Lay down formulae and norms for O&M (b) avoid arbitrary claims by utilities (c) Ensure efficiency and consumer protection.
of
It has been further emphasized that
determination of O & M charges by the Commission does not rt amount to rewriting the contract under the Electricity Act.
Tariff determination is statutory function of the Commission and the Statute can always override the contracts, if executed between the parties. Determination of tariff is in exclusive domain of Commission. Regulatory intervention does not amount to altering or rewriting the contracts but enforcing the statutory schemes. Placing reliance upon Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others Vs. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited and Others 6, The State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors.7 and Himachal Pradesh Electricity 6 2024 (8) SCC 513 7 Civil Appeal No.12883 of 2024, decided on 16.07.2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 11 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Board Ltd. Vs. Kundan Hydro (Lui) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.8, prayer was made to dismiss the petitions being not maintainable in view of availability of statutory appeal against the impugned order.
.
4. HPERC has carried out the impugned exercise of fixing normative O & M charges order dated 23.02.2024 in terms of power vested in it under Section 86 of the Electricity Act (reproduced at para 4(ii)(a) of this judgment). Admittedly of order dated 16.10.2023 passed by HPERC, is subject matter of appeal No. 920 of 2023 pending before Appellate Tribunal rt for Electricity (APTEL). Against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by HPERC, petitioners have statutory remedies available to them under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by preferring an appeal/revision to the Appellate Tribunal. The Section reads as under:-
"111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under this Act (except under section 127) or an order made by the Appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity:
Provided that any person appealing against the order of the adjudicating officer levying any penalty shall, while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty:
Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may dispense with such deposit subject 8 LPA No. 492 of 2024 decided on 09.01.2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 12 ( 2026:HHC:8409 to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of penalty. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission is received by the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form, verified in such .
manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the of appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.
(4)rt The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission, as the case may be.
(5) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within one hundred and eighty days from the date of receipt of the appeal:
Provided that where any appeal could not be disposed of within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Appellate Tribunal shall record its reasons in writing for not disposing of the appeal within the said period.
(6) The Appellate Tribunal may, for the purpose of examining the legality, propriety or correctness of any order made by the adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission under this Act, as the case may be, in relation to any proceeding, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of such proceedings and make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
4(i) In Radha Krishan Industries4, Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the principles of law regarding ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 13 ( 2026:HHC:8409 maintainability of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution vis-à-vis the rule of alternate remedy as under:-
"27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
.
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
of 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings rt are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."
4(ii)(a) In Kundan Hydro (Luni) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary (MPP & ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 14 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Power) & Anr.9, respondents had questioned maintainability of the writ petition as under: -
"5(iii) Maintainability of Writ Petition 5(iii)(a) Respondents have also questioned the .
maintainability of the writ petition. According to the respondents, the Electricity Act, 2003 is an exhaustive legislation which provides complete machinery for adjudication of the disputes between the distribution licensee and generating companies or to refer the same for arbitration under section 86(1)(f) of the Act. Being relevant, the Section is extracted hereinafter: -
of "86. (1) The State Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely: -
(a) determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission rt and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State:
Providing that where open access has been permitted to a category of consumers under section 42, the State Commission shall determine only the wheeling charges and surcharge thereon, if any, for the said category of consumers;
(b) regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the generating companies or licensees or from other sources through agreements for purchase of power for distribution and supply within the State;
(c) facilitate intra-state transmission and wheeling of electricity;
(d) issue licences to persons seeking to act as transmission licensees, distribution licensees and electricity traders with respect to their operations within the State;9
CWP No. 7177/2024 decided on 10.09.2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 15 ( 2026:HHC:8409
(e) promote cogeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total .
consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution licence;
(f) adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees, and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration;
(g) levy fee for the purposes of this Act; (h) specify State Grid Code consistent with the Grid Code specified under clause of
(h) of sub-section (1) of section 79;
(i) specify or enforce standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by licensees; rt
(j) fix the trading margin in the intra-State trading of electricity, if considered, necessary; and
(k) discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The State Commission shall advise the State Government on all or any of the following matters, namely :-
(i) promotion of competition, efficiency and economy in activities of the electricity industry;
(ii) promotion of investment in electricity industry;
(iii) reorganization and restructuring of electricity industry in the State;
(iv) matters concerning generation, transmission, distribution and trading of electricity or any other matter referred to the State Commission by that Government. (3) The State Commission shall ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its functions. (4) In discharge of its functions the State Commission shall be guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan and tariff policy published under Section 3."
According to the respondents, the issue involved in the matter has to be considered & decided in accordance with ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 16 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Regulation 17 of the HPERC Regulations-2017 by filing appropriate proceedings before the HPERC. Writ petition is therefore not maintainable. Placing reliance upon Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & anr.10; State of U.P. & ors. vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd.11; and New .
India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava12, it has been contended that writ petition stems from a contractual dispute, therefore, is beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution."
Opposing the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent, petitioner had stressed that: -
of "Whereas according to the petitioner, plea of non maintainability of the writ petition, is a misconceived contention in view of settled law that existence of an rt alternate remedy is not a bar on maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present case involves rank arbitrariness leading to perversity on part of respondents in attempting to enforce a third party contract against a non-signatory, contrary to law & applicable Regulations. The writ petition, therefore, is maintainable."
Holding that petitioner was not seeking to determine tariff for sale/purchase of electricity generated at its power plant but raising the issue whether PPA in question would bind the petitioner, the objection of maintainability was turned down as under: -
"5(iii)(b) Petitioner in the instant case is not seeking to determine tariff for sale/purchase of the electricity generated from LHEP 4.50 MW. The question involved in the 10 (2006) 10 SCC 236 11 (1996) 6 SCC 22 12 (2008) 3 SCC 446 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 17 ( 2026:HHC:8409 lis is as to whether the PPA dated 31.05.2000 can be held to be binding upon the petitioner.
In M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & ors13 the appellant had challenged the judgment .
passed by the High Court whereby an order passed by the appellant terminating PPA entered into by the appellant & respondent, was quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court held that PPA is not a statutory contract. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory will not entitle the State in a case by itself to ward off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if complaining party is of able to establish that such action/inaction is per se arbitrary. It was also held that an action will lie when State's action relates to the stage prior to the contract being rt entered into. Even after the contract is entered into there can be a variety of circumstances which may provide a cause of action to a party to the contract with the State to seek relief by filing a writ petition. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under......"
Kundan Hydro9 was allowed with following directions: -
"7. The Result The sum total of above discussions is that this writ petition succeeds. Following directions are issued:-
(i) Impugned communication dated 16.07.2024 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is held that Power Purchase Agreement dated 31.05.2000 executed between respondent No. 2-HPSEBL and M/s Subhash Projects & Marketing Limited (Original Project Developer) is not binding upon the petitioner and cannot be enforced against it.
(iii) Respondent No. 2 is directed to execute a Power Purchase Agreement with the petitioner in respect of the entire Project capacity of 4.50 MW at the HPERC determined tariff applicable as on Scheduled Commercial Operation 13 (2023) 2 SCC 703 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 18 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Date of the Project in accordance with law and complete all codal formalities in furtherance thereof without unnecessary delay.
(iv) In order to avoid loss of electricity generated at the Project, it is ordered that till the determination of tariff as on the date of commissioning of the Project by the HPERC in terms of direction No. (iii) above, the petitioner shall be .
permitted by the respondents to sell the electricity generated from its Power Project to third parties after adjusting the free power supply to the respondents in accordance with law."
4(ii)(b) The above decision was overturned in Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Kundan Hydro (Luni) of Pvt. Ltd & Anr.14 holding, as per Section 86(b) of the Electricity Act, it is the function of State Electricity Regulatory Commission to regulate electricity purchase and rt procurement process of distribution licenses including the price at which electricity is to be procured and to determine tariff. The exercise undertaken in Kundan Hydro (Luni)9 was held to be that of tariff determination, which falls within the exclusive domain of Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Relevant paras from the decision are as under: -
"31. As per Section 86(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the functions of the State Electricity Commission are to regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution licensees including the price at which electricity is to be procured and to determine the tariff. Section 86(1) (a) & (b) of the said Act reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
36. This aspect apparently skipped the notice of the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. It is 14 LPA No. 492/2024 decided on 09.01.2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 19 ( 2026:HHC:8409 thus apparent that the Writ Court has taken over the exercise as such of tariff determination which falls within the exclusive domain of the Electricity Regulation Commission and therefore an error of law has occurred while issuance of the necessary directions. It is not for this .
Court to substitute its opinion as to whether the petitioners have to sell power at what rate and therefore the fixation of tariff by the learned Single Judge was not justified. The Project having not seen the light of the day and not being commissioned for all these years, it was an exercise which was to be determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission rather than forcing the Board as such to enter of into an Agreement at the prevalent rates and re-fixing the terms of the Contract as such. It was beyond the purview of the Writ Court on the ground by granting relief 7(iii) that the rt action was arbitrary and would thus be an exercise by which the power of the Commission has been taken over and the directions have been issued by the Writ Court which is not permissible.
38. The judgment was delivered recently only on 16.07.2025 and therefore, the learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of the said judgment. Another judgment arising from this Court in KKK Hydro Power Limited case (supra) also while dealing with the issue of tariff fixation at the rate of Rs.2.87 and 2.95 per kWh and while dealing with the Appellate Tribunals order has held that while referring to Section 86(1) (b) of the 'Act' that the fixing of the price of purchase of electricity is not a matter of private negotiations and Agreements between the generating company and a distribution licensees, while upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that it required no determination for the 3 Megawatts Hydel Power Projects but only for the additional 1.9 Megawatts was required to be re-determined.
39. In Ramayana Ispat Private Limited and another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (2025) 8 SCC 747, the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 20 ( 2026:HHC:8409 the regulations framed by the State Commission were held to be facilitating intra-Sate transmissions and wheeling of electricity and for maintaining disciplines in power scheduling and ensuring that consumers do not gain unfair advantage by evading scheduling norms and for equitable .
treatment of all market participants while safeguarding the integrity of the power grid. The relevant part reads as under:-
"67. Furthermore, the 2003 Act, envisages a balance between the rights of open access consumers and the operational concerns of the power sector. The 2016 Regulations, while imposing certain conditions, do not of outright deny open access but ensure that its implementation is equitable and does not jeopardise grid discipline. Open access remains available to consumers who comply with regulatory prerequisites, including rtscheduling obligations and financial commitments. Thus, the appellant's assertion that their right to open access is foreclosed is misplaced. The 2016 Regulations are consistent with the legislative intent of the 2003 Act, ensuring that open access is exercised in a manner that does not compromise system stability, fairness, or economic viability. Therefore, the regulatory framework does not foreclose open access but rather operationalises it within reasonable constraints essential for sustaining the electricity sector.
68. The statutory scheme under the 2003 Act mandates that regulations framed by State Commissions must serve the larger public interest. The respondents have successfully established that the impugned Regulations serve this purpose by ensuring equitable treatment of all market participants while safeguarding the integrity of the power grid.
69. RERC derives its authority from the 2003 Act, which vests in it the power to frame regulations governing open access, scheduling, and penalties. Section 86(1)(c) of the 2003 Act specifically empowers State Commissions to facilitate intra-State transmission and wheeling of electricity. Furthermore, Section 181 empowers the Commission to make regulations consistent with the 2003 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 21 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Act and its objectives. The impugned Regulations have been framed in exercise of these statutory powers. The requirement for scheduling, imposition of penalties, and limits on drawl are not arbitrary but are measures falling within the regulatory ambit of the Commission to ensure grid stability and fair competition. The 2003 Act envisions a .
structured and fair mechanism for open access while ensuring that market participants do not engage in practices detrimental to the larger consumer base. Moreover, under Section 42 of the 2003 Act, the State Commission has the mandate to regulate open access in distribution and specify the charges and conditions applicable. The respondents have demonstrated that these conditions are necessary for of maintaining discipline in power scheduling and ensuring that open access consumers do not gain an unfair advantage over other consumers by evading scheduling norms or penalties.
rt
70. The Jodhpur Bench in common order dated 29-8-2016, which has been challenged before us in Civil Appeals Nos.7965 and 7966 of 2019, has rightly upheld the validity of the 2016 Regulations holding that any inconvenience caused or even some hardship faced by the captive power generators shall not make the Regulations illegal. The High Court also rightly pointed out that the appellants have failed to establish that the impugned Regulations are in contravention of their rights protected under Part III or any other provision of the Constitution of India or that the Regulations have been enacted without having the competence to do so or they are manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. It has been rightly held by the High Court that the 2016 Regulations are in consonance with the objects of the 2003 Act and have been framed as per the competence available under Section 181 read with Section 42 of the 2003 Act."
Finally appeal was allowed as under holding the writ petition to be not maintainable: -
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 22( 2026:HHC:8409
"40. It is thus, apparent that the learned Single Judge has mis-directed itself by choosing to decide the issue on merits and also rejected the plea of alternate remedy on the ground that there was an arbitrary action as such. The Board as such had only recommended that the matter should be .
placed before the Electricity Regulatory Commission, keeping in view the power as such of the Commission to fix the tariff and once the Regulations had come into force, it was for the Commission to see as to what would be the rate of the tariff to be fixed between the Board and the petitioner under the policy dated 15.05.2018 which makes it mandatory for the Board to purchase the electricity from of Projects below 10 MW.
41. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to rt be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment dated 10.09.2024 and relegate the parties to its alternate remedy as suggested by the appellant-Board dated 16.07.2024.
Needless to say, it is for the Regulatory Commission as such to fix the tariff as such, keeping in mind all the relevant parameters and the fact that project has been hanging fire since the year 2000. Neither the Board nor the State or the petitioners can be prejudiced on account of the 25 years having been passed and the interest as such would have to be adjudicated, keeping in mind this aspect by the expert body.
42. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, as indicated hereinabove, along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any."
4(iii). Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.6 held that High Court was not justified in directly entertaining the writ petition when the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 23 ( 2026:HHC:8409 of approaching the State Electricity Commission. It was observed as under:-
"127. It is needless to state that this Court, time and again, in various judgments including the one in the case of GMR Warora Energy Limited (supra) has recognised the .
requirement of balancing the consumers' interest with that of the interest of the generators. It will not be permissible to take a lopsided view only to protect the interest of the generators ignoring the consumers' interest and public interest.
128. We find that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of PTC India Limited (supra) has held that of the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code on all matters concerning electricity. Under the Electricity Act, all issues dealing with electricity have to be considered by the authorities constituted under the said Act. As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the State Electricity rt Commission and the learned APTEL have ample powers to adjudicate in the matters with regard to electricity. Not only that, these Tribunals are tribunals consisting of experts having vast experience in the field of electricity. As such, we find that the High Court erred in directly entertaining the writ petition when the respondent No.1, i.e., the writ petitioner before the High Court had an adequate alternate remedy of approaching the State Electricity Commission.
129. This Court in the case of Reliance Infrastructure Limited v.
State of Maharashtra and others15 has held that while exercising its power of judicial review, the Court can step in where a case of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness is made out.
130. In the present case, there is not even an allegation with regard to that effect. In such circumstances, recourse to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the availability of efficacious alternate remedy under a statute, which is a complete code in itself, in our view, was not justified.
131. No doubt that availability of an alternate remedy is not a complete bar in the exercise of the power of judicial review by the High Courts. But, recourse to such a remedy would be permissible only if extraordinary and exceptional circumstances are made out. A reference in this respect 15 (2019) 3 SCC 352 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 24 ( 2026:HHC:8409 could be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others16 and South Indian Bank Ltd.
and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another17."
After referring in para 132 to Radha Krishan .
Industries v. State of H.P.4 and principles laid down therein, it was held as under:-
"98. This Court has clearly held that when a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before of invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
4(iv). Following issues arose for determination in rt Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited & Ors.18:-
"30. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our consideration:
i. Whether the CERC, while exercising its functions under Section 79(1) of the Act, 2003, is circumscribed by statutory regulations enacted under Section 178 of the Act, 2003?
ii. Whether the CERC exercises regulatory or adjudicatory functions under Section 79 of the Act, 2003? In other words, what is the scope of the CERC's power to regulate inter-state transmission of electricity and determine tariff for the same under clauses (c) and (d) of Section 79(1)? iii. Whether the grant of compensation by the CERC for the delay vide the orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 respectively, is a regulatory or adjudicatory function and to what extent are the principles of natural justice applicable to the exercise of such functions?16
(2021) 6 SCC 771 17 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435 18 Civil Appeal No.6847 of 2025, decided on 15.05.2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 25 ( 2026:HHC:8409 iv. Whether the High Court was justified in admitting the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 of the CERC when there existed an alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Act, 2003?"
.
Apex Court held that determination of tariff is an adjudicatory function of Electricity Regulatory Commissions.
Even though determination of tariff like price fixation is a legislative act, yet such determination is appealable under the Electricity Act indicative of the fact that it is an adjudicatory of function. The orders passed under regulatory powers are appealable. Relevant portions are as under:-
rt "50. This Court in PTC (supra) has held that the determination of tariff under Section 79(1) is an adjudicatory function of the CERC for the following reasons:
(i) First, the actual determination/fixation of tariff is done by the appropriate commission between the parties before it under Section 62 of the Act, 2003. Although Section 61 is the enabling provision for framing of regulations while keeping in mind the generic propositions provided thereunder, yet the determination of tariff in respect of a specific generation unit, asset, transmission line, etc, is done by virtue of the power emanating from Section 62. Therefore, the determination of tariff is specific to an individual case and is not of general application under the Act, 2003. This is in consonance with the test laid down in Sitaram Sugar Co.
Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223 wherein it was held that one of the factors to determine if an order was issued in exercise of an adjudicatory function, is to ascertain whether it was specific to an individual or of general application.
(ii) Secondly, even though determination of tariff like price fixation is a legislative act, yet such determination has been made appealable to the APTEL under Section
111. The terms of the Act, 2003, therefore, clearly indicate that determination of tariff is an adjudicatory ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 26 ( 2026:HHC:8409 function. The relevant observations of this Court in PTC (supra) are reproduced below:
"26. The term "tariff" is not defined in the 2003 Act. The term "tariff" includes within its ambit not only the fixation of rates but also the rules and regulations relating to it. If one reads Section 61 with Section 62 of the 2003 Act, it becomes clear .
that the appropriate Commission shall determine the actual tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Act, including the terms and conditions which may be specified by the appropriate Commission under Section 61 of the said Act. Under the 2003 Act, if one reads Section 62 with Section 64, it becomes clear that although tariff fixation like price fixation is legislative in character, the same under of the Act is made appealable vide Section 111. These provisions, namely, Sections 61, 62 and 64 indicate the dual nature of functions performed by the Regulatory Commissions viz. decision-making and rtspecifying terms and conditions for tariff determination.
49. On the above analysis of various sections of the 2003 Act, we find that the decision-making and regulation-making functions are both assigned to CERC. Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by regulation and litigation. Laws from all three sources are binding. According to Professor Wade, "between legislative and administrative functions we have regulatory functions". A statutory instrument, such as a rule or regulation, emanates from the exercise of delegated legislative power which is a part of administrative process resembling enactment of law by the legislature whereas a quasi-judicial order comes from adjudication which is also a part of administrative process resembling a judicial decision by a court of law. (See Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223].)
50. Applying the above test, price fixation exercise is really legislative in character, unless by the terms of a particular statute it is made quasi-judicial as in the case of tariff fixation under Section 62 made appealable under Section 111 of the 2003 Act, though Section 61 is an enabling provision for the framing of regulations by CERC. If one takes "tariff"
as a subject-matter, one finds that under Part VII of the 2003 Act actual determination/fixation of tariff ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 27 ( 2026:HHC:8409 is done by the appropriate Commission under Section 62 whereas Section 61 is the enabling provision for framing of regulations containing generic propositions in accordance with which the appropriate Commission has to fix the tariff. This basic scheme equally applies to the subject-matter "trading margin" in a different statutory context as .
will be demonstrated by discussion hereinbelow."
(Emphasis supplied)
57. The respondent no. 1 has averred that the CERC cannot conflate its powers of regulation with its adjudicatory functions and a regulation cannot be brought into force by way of a judicial order. In the specific case of Nuclear Power Corporation (supra), we are inclined to of agree with the submission of the respondent no. 1 to the extent that a regulation cannot be done through the process of adjudication. However, could it be said that there is a blanket ban on the CERC to exercise its regulatory functions by way of orders under Section 79(1)?
rt In light of this Court's dictum in AERA (supra), our answer to this question must be an emphatic 'No'.
58. We are of the view that even though the orders under Section 79 may not always be limpid as regards the matters where CERC is exercising its regulatory functions yet this cannot be the reason to conclude that the CERC passes all orders in its capacity as an adjudicator. The nomenclature "judicial order(s)" as used in Nuclear Power Corporation (supra) does not change the nature of a specific order that the CERC gives in its capacity as a regulator and the courts must understand the true import of an order to determine the nature thereof.
59. The CERC granted liberty to the appellant herein to claim compensation from the respondent no. 1 to deal with a situation caused due to an unprecedented event not covered by any guidelines, regulations or contractual provisions between the parties. The dictum of this Court in paragraph 20 of Energy Watchdog (supra), indicates that in such a situation where there is an absence of regulations and guidelines, the Act, 2003 mandates the CERC to strike a judicious balance between the parties keeping in mind commercial principles and consumers' interest, in exercise of its general regulatory powers under Section 79(1).
60. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that though the CERC's orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 respectively were for determination of tariff, yet the order granting liberty to the aggrieved ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 28 ( 2026:HHC:8409 appellant to claim compensation from the defaulting party is a consequence of a regulatory lacuna in the 2014 Tariff Regulations and therefore, is an instance of regulation of tariff between the parties.
61. Since the CERC was not adjudicating the issue of delay between the parties but was only regulating the consequences of the delay to the commissioning of the .
transmission elements, we are of the view that there was no requirement for a specific prayer in this regard. As a natural corollary, there was also no occasion for the respondent no. 1 to be afforded an opportunity to be heard at that stage. In our considered view, any dispute pertaining to the levy of transmission charges incurred before the concerned transmission assets were put to use, would arise only upon the appellant raising bills to the of respondent no. 1 in this regard. In such a scenario, it cannot be said that there was a contravention of the principles of natural justice by the CERC.
62. As regards the contention of the respondent no. 1 that the validity of a regulation cannot be looked into by rt the statutory authorities under the Act, 2003, we are of the view that the said submission was made without considering the general regulatory power under Section 79(1). While we are in agreement with the submission of the respondent no. 1 that the vires of a regulation under Section 178 cannot be challenged before an authority that is the creation of the parent statute, the same cannot be said so for a specific regulation effected under Section 79(1).
63. It is apposite to mention that the sources of power for enactment of a regulation under Section 178 and regulatory order under Section 79(1) are different. The former emanates from the power of delegated legislation whereas the latter is an ad hoc power which is limited to the specific parties and situation in context of which the order is given. Since the regulatory powers under Section 79(1) are of an ad hoc nature and are not of general application, the orders thereunder are made appealable under Section 111.
64. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, we find that this Court's observations in Whirlpool (supra) are of no avail to the respondent no. 1 as the present matter falls in none of the cases enumerated therein. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to admit the writ petition of the respondent no. 1."
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 29( 2026:HHC:8409 4(v) It would also be appropriate to refer to State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors.7 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the expertise and specialization of CERC as a statutory regulator .
and the wide ranging jurisdiction it exercises under the Electricity Act, held the writ petition to be not maintainable before the High Court. Relevant observations are as under: -
(a) The Electricity Act, 2003 is a complete and of comprehensive code for regulating the generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity. One rt of the core features of the Act is that it unbundles the functions of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution that were erstwhile performed by State Electricity Boards19 into separate utilities, and provides for their regulation through independent Regulatory Commissions20. (para 7 of the judgment)
(b) The need for an independent and transparent regulatory mechanism was felt due to the regulatory failures under the erstwhile legal regime21, wherein SEBs constituted by the State Governments were entrusted with regulation 22.19
Hereinafter "SEBs 20 PTC (supra), para 17.
21Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter "the 1910 Act"); the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter "the 1948 Act").
22K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431, para 6.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 30( 2026:HHC:8409 It was experienced that various problems plagued the power sector, including lack of rational retail tariffs, high level of cross-subsidies, poor planning and operation, inadequate capacity, neglect of consumer interest, and limited .
involvement of the private sector's skills and resources23. It is in this context that the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 199824 was enacted to reform the governance of the sector by establishing an independent and transparent of regulatory mechanism.25 (para 8 of the judgment)
(c) Finally, the Act provides for the constitution of rt permanent expert bodies, i.e., Central and State Electricity Regulatory Commissions, to regulate the production, transfer and use of electricity, as well as for the development of the sector through private sector participation and competitiveness to subserve consumer interests.
Considering the specialised nature of functions performed by these bodies, the Act also provides for an appellate forum to challenge the Central and State Commissions' decisions, i.e., the APTEL, which can appreciate the technicalities and nuances of the sector. (para 9.6 of the judgment) 23 Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 24 Hereinafter "the 1998 Act".
25W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 715, para 52; PTC (supra), para 17; Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2014) 8 SCC 444, para 22.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 31( 2026:HHC:8409
(d) While the Electricity Act has done away with the licensing requirement for generating companies, it continues to regulate electricity generation as the tariff at which the generating company supplies electricity to a distribution .
licensee is determined by the Central or State Commission, as is appropriate, as per Section 62(1)(a) read with Section 79 and Section 86 of the Act26. We will further deal with the tariff determination function of the CERC at a later stage."
of (para 13 of the judgment)
(e) ..........CERC as an Expert and Specialised rt Regulator, and Extent of Judicial Interference: In order to appreciate the issue on maintainability of the writ petition, it is necessary to take note that postmodern legislation institutionalises governance through regulation. Under the Electricity Act, we see such a statutory incorporation of the regulators through the CERC and the State Commissions that are expert and specialised bodies to perform wide-
ranging regulatory functions27. (para-26 of the judgment).
26Section 62(1)(a) of the Electricity Act reads: "Section 62. (Determination of tariff): --- (1) The Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for - (a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee:
Provided that the Appropriate Commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable prices of electricity;..."27
See PTC (supra), para 17; Sai Renewable (supra), paras 36 and 38; Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 352, para 38.::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 32
( 2026:HHC:8409
(f) ........The jurisprudence on regulation is that independent regulators, armed with statutory powers and duties, were established to reduce the government's control and interference with the market while safeguarding .
consumer interests, preventing abuse of monopoly, and enabling private participation in the sector. Therefore, the regulator has socio-economic obligations of ensuring accessibility of goods and services, as well as the duties of towards the development of the industry by promoting efficiency and competition 28. The nature of functions and the rt jurisdiction of these regulatory bodies are wide and extensive as they perform a mix of legislative, executive and administrative, and judicial functions29. Concomitantly, they are sufficiently empowered under the statute, and legislative, executive and adjudicatory powers are telescoped into one institution. Regulators have the power to lay down rules and regulations; issue licenses; fix prices and scope and areas of operation; investigate and prosecute offences, and impose penalties; adjudicate disputes and interpret the law;
implement and enforce the statute, the rules and regulations made thereunder, and their decisions; and exercise 28 H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law (11th edn, Oxford University Press 2014), 116-117.
29ibid, 124.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 33( 2026:HHC:8409 incidental and ancillary powers to deal with all aspects relating to the sector30. (para-27 of the judgment)
(g) ............Specifically, in the context of the CERC under the Electricity Act, Section 79 sets out its functions, .
including tariff determination. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow:
"Section 79. (Functions of Central Commission): --- (1) The Central Commission shall discharge the following functions, of namely:- *** (b) to regulate the tariff of generating companies other than those owned or controlled by the Central Government specified in clause (a), if such generating companies enter into or otherwise have a composite scheme rt for generation and sale of electricity in more than one State..." (para-28 of the judgment).
(h) ........"Tariff" has not been defined under the Electricity Act, but it has been interpreted by this Court on several occasions. This Court in PTC (supra) held that "tariff"
does not only mean fixation of rates but also the rules and regulations relating to it....... (para-29 of the judgment).
(i) ........This Court has time and again emphasised that since tariff determination, including the power to make regulations for this purpose, has been entrusted to a specialised and expert regulator constituted under the statute itself, it would not be proper for constitutional courts 30 ibid; Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 186, para 33; U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2009) 6 SCC 235, paras 4, 22, 48.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 34( 2026:HHC:8409 to interfere and assume these functions, or to examine tariff fixation on its merits and substitute its own determination for the one made by the expert body after duly considering all material circumstances31. We are of the opinion that this .
is necessary not only to ensure that these specialised functions are performed by expert regulators but to also facilitate a systematic and consistent development of sectoral laws. (para-32 of the judgment).
of
(j) In this light, when a constitutional court is interpreting statutes, rules, or regulations that fall within the rt regulator's domain, it must bear in mind the need to enable the regulator to exercise comprehensive jurisdiction. Courts must not impair the functioning of the regulator by taking away certain aspects of the sector outside the regulator's scope, thereby fragmenting regulation and creating plurality of jurisdictions. It is in the interest of good governance through regulation to ensure that there is no proliferation of remedies and there are no parallel, multiple remedial forums.
Further, this also ensures that the sectoral law is developed in a coordinated and systematic fashion by the regulator that 31 Sai Renewable (supra), paras 38, 40, 41; Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (supra), para 38; Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Rain Calcining Ltd., (2021) 13 SCC 674, para 66; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., (2023) 7 SCC 401, paras 118-121.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 35( 2026:HHC:8409 is equipped to deal with not only legal issues but also has specialised knowledge in other areas. (para-33 of the judgment).
(k) The above principles are also reflected in a recent decision of this Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.6.
.
Here, the High Court exercised writ jurisdiction and directed distribution companies to procure power from bidders, who are generating companies, at the prices quoted in their bids till the requisite quantum of power was procured. Allowing of the appeal of the distribution companies, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ rt petition as the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code and all issues dealing with electricity must be considered by the expert bodies, i.e., the Regulatory Commissions constituted under the Act. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow:
"128. We find that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition. The Constitution Bench of this Court in PTC has held that the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code on all matters concerning electricity. Under the Electricity Act, all issues dealing with electricity have to be considered by the authorities constituted under the said Act. As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the State Electricity Commission and the learned APTEL have ample powers to adjudicate in the matters with regard to electricity. Not only that, these Tribunals are tribunals consisting of experts having vast experience in the field of electricity. As such, we find that the High Court erred in directly entertaining the writ petition when Respondent 1 i.e. the writ petitioner before the High Court had an ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 36 ( 2026:HHC:8409 adequate alternate remedy of approaching the State Electricity Commission.
129. This Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra has held that while exercising its power of judicial review, the Court can step in where a case of .
manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness is made out.
130. In the present case, there is not even an allegation with regard to that effect. In such circumstances, recourse to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the availability of efficacious alternate remedy under a statute, which is a complete code in itself, in our view, was not justified." (emphasis supplied) of (Para 34 of the judgment) The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that under rt the Electricity Act, the statutory regulator has been entrusted with discharging the function of tariff determination, including making regulations for the purpose and interpreting the same. Constitutional courts must enable the regulator to comprehensively regulate all aspects of the sector such that remedies are not fragmented and certain issues are not left outside the regulator's domain. The regulator has the expertise, specialisation, and institutional memory to conduct such an interpretative exercise to further the objective of the regulatory regime and systematically lay down legal principles. In this light, the High Court should not have entered into the domain of interpreting these Regulations which deal with tariff determination, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the CERC. The ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS 37 ( 2026:HHC:8409 Electricity Act itself provides the appellate mechanisms by establishing a specialised and permanent tribunal, namely the APTEL, and an appeal before this Court, against the CERC's orders. In view of the existence of a statutory .
regulatory forum, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition by interpreting the CERC Regulations.
5. For the forgoing, in view of statutory remedy of available to the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate rt remedy in accordance with law. The period spent in pursuing these writ petitions shall not be computed for purposes of limitation.
All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
March 23, 2026 Judge
rohit
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2026 20:29:29 :::CIS