Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ, C.M. POONACHA
Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Private Limited, represented By Authorized Representative Mr. Nikhil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's status and dismissal of initial challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. challenge focuses on the constitutional validity of surcharge under section 42. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's validation of the surcharge mechanism in ensuring equity in electricity costs. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision rendering the appeal dismissed. (Para 12 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.
1. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It claims that it is a Special Purpose Vehicle [SPV], which owns, operates and maintains wind power generating stations in the State of Karnataka.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.4344/2024 (GM-KEB), whereby the said petition was dismissed.
3. The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that the proviso to Section 42 (2) of the Electricity Act , 2003 [ Electricity Act ] to the extent that it makes open access conditional upon payment of cross-subsidy surcharge be struck down. In the alternative, the appellant had prayed that an order be issued to read down the said proviso for ensuring continuity of open access in a fai
The court upheld that cross-subsidy surcharges are constitutional and integral to the Electricity Act's framework, ensuring fair distribution of electricity costs.
Entity maintaining internal electricity network solely for own consumption fails to qualify as deemed distribution licensee and remains liable for surcharges as consumer availing open access.
The determination of Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) can be made separately from tariff determination, based on the prevailing tariff rates as per Regulation 90 of the Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 201....
Provisions for duty of distribution licensee and open access has to be read conjointly.
Captive consumers / captive users are not liable to pay additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of Electricity Act, 2003 – Consumers defined under Section 2(15) of Electricity Act, 2003 and captive ....
The Central Government lacks the legislative competence to frame rules regarding open access in electricity, which is exclusively regulated by the State Commission under the Electricity Act.
Writ petitions under Article 226 against electricity regulatory commission orders fixing O&M charges not maintainable due to efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 111 of Electricity Act, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
