The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) review order on tariff revisions, holding that the petitioners must avail themselves of the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

The Court ruled that the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It granted the petitioners liberty to approach APTEL within six weeks and directed that any delay within this period be condoned.

The Court also permitted the petitioners to seek interim relief before APTEL and requested the tribunal to hear such applications expeditiously.

Background

The case arose from a challenge by the Distributed Solar Power Association and two solar power companies to MERC’s order, passed in a review petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDCL).

The petition sought reconsideration of MERC’s multi-year tariff order, which set the tariff and annual revenue requirements for FY 2025-26 to FY 2029-30.

The petitioners argued that the impugned order violated an earlier Bombay High Court judgment, which had set aside a prior review order and remanded the matter to MERC with directions to follow principles of natural justice by consulting stakeholders and considering their objections.

According to the petitioners, although objections were invited and hearings were conducted, the Commission failed to consider or address the objections raised by stakeholders, particularly regarding Time-of-Day (ToD) tariffs, banking provisions, and the withdrawal of night-hour rebates.

They contended that the order was unreasoned, ignored stakeholder submissions, and improperly invoked inherent powers despite judicial restrictions.

The respondents, including MERC and MSEDCL, opposed the writ petition’s maintainability, arguing that the petitioners had a statutory right to appeal to APTEL. They submitted that MERC had complied with the remand directions by issuing public notice, conducting hearings, and considering objections from over 2,000 stakeholders before passing the review order.

They noted that the High Court’s earlier judgment, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, explicitly allowed aggrieved parties to approach APTEL after the Commission’s decision on remand.

High Court’s Analysis

The Court examined whether it should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

It reiterated that while Article 226 of the Constitution confers wide powers, courts ordinarily refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious statutory remedy exists, except in limited circumstances such as clear violations of natural justice.

The petitioners argued that the MERC order was unreasoned, particularly regarding ToD tariffs and banking provisions. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the order could not be characterized as wholly unreasoned.

It observed that MERC had engaged with the central issue surrounding the interpretation of the applicable regulations and provided reasons for its conclusions. While the petitioners may dispute the adequacy or correctness of those reasons, that would not render the order devoid of reasoning so as to justify writ intervention.

The Court said that in tariff proceedings involving a large number of stakeholders, it is not necessary for the regulator to address every individual objection in detail. It held that “consideration of objections” does not require separate reasoning on each submission, as such an approach would make tariff determination unworkable.

It found that MERC had complied with the procedural directions contained in the earlier High Court judgment. It noted that public notice was issued, hearings were conducted, and stakeholders were given an opportunity to participate.

The Court rejected the argument that the Commission failed to consider stakeholder objections, holding that reasoning on the core issues was sufficient in the context of tariff proceedings.

Addressing the contention that MERC had improperly invoked inherent powers, the Court held that this issue pertains to the merits of the decision and can be raised before APTEL. It also observed that merely referring to inherent powers does not, by itself, amount to a violation of the earlier High Court ruling.

The Court emphasized that several other parties had already challenged the same review order before APTEL. Entertaining the writ petition could result in conflicting decisions between the High Court and the appellate tribunal.

It said some petitioners were associated with an industry body that had already filed an appeal before APTEL, and any relief granted there could potentially benefit them.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.