Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1992
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Renew Wind Energy (rajkot) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1253 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2019
C.A. Sundaram, Adv., M.G. Ramachandran, Adv., Hemantika Wahi, Adv., Jesal Wahi, Adv., Ranjeeta Ramachandran, Adv., Vishakha, Adv., K.V. Vishwanathan, Adv., Vishal Gupta, Adv., Shyam Divan, Adv., Govind Manoharan, Adv., Venkatesh, Adv., Sandeep Rajpurohit, Adv., Vikas Mani, Adv., Somesh Srivastava, Adv., Mohit D Ram, Adv.
The court's decision focused on permitting the appellants to seek rectification/review of the order from the APTEL without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote:
PPA - State Regulatory Commission - The court permitted the appellants to move the APTEL for rectification/review of the order regarding the competence of the State Regulatory Commission to reopen the PPA, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants contended that the State Regulatory Commission was not competent to reopen the PPA and sought permission to move the APTEL for rectification/review of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the civil appeal, making it clear that it had not made any observation on the merits of the case between the parties and granted leave to the appellants to approach the Court again if necessary.
Issues: Competence of the State Regulatory Commission to reopen the PPA
Ratio Decidendi: The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but permitted the appellants to seek rectification/review of the order from the APTEL.
Final Decision: The civil appeal was disposed of, and the appellants were granted leave to approach the Court again if necessary.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant material.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that an issue had been raised before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that the State Regulatory Commission was not competent to reopen the PPA. In this regard, averments made before the APTEL in the memo of appeal has been read out to us. Without expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the issue had been raised before the APTEL and if so the merits thereof, we permit the appellants to move the APTEL for rectification/ review of the order, if so advised.
3. With the above terms, we dispose of the civil appeal by making it once again clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case between the parties. In the event, it becomes necessary, leave is granted to the appellants to approach this Court once again.
