Regulatory bodies are mandated to consult affected stakeholders before altering significant tariff orders, as per statutory provisions ensuring transparency and adherence to natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. All the above Writ Petitions take exception to the impugned review order dated 25^th June 2025 passed by the 1st Respondent – Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “MERC”) in a Review Petition filed by the 2nd Respondent – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MSEDCL”). By the impugned review order, the original Multi Year Tariff Order (for short the “MYT Order”) dated 28^th March 2025 was substantially modified. In most Petitions, namely, Writ Petition (L) No. 19450 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 19640 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 20790 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 21714 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 20635 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 19529 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 20945 of 2025; and Writ Petition (L) No. 20792 of 2025, paragraphs 35.9 to 35.16 of the impugned review order are challenged. In other words, in these Petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the directions given in the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned review order as they are vitally affected by these directions.

3. In some of the above Petitions, namely, Writ Petition (L) No. 20790 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) No. 20792 of 2025, in addition to paragraphs 35.9 to 35.16, paragraphs 38.9 to 38.12 of the impugned review order are also challenged. Again, in some Writ Petitions, the Constitutional validity of Regulation 115 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2024 is also challenged for inter alia being contrary to the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 (as amended). As far as Writ Petition (L) No. 21326 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 21021 of 2025 and Writ Petition (L) No. 19437 of 2025 are concerned, they do not restrict their challenge only to certain paragraphs of the impugned review order but challenge the same in its entirety.

4. The common thread in all the above Petitions is that the impugned review order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Transactions of Business and Fees and Charges) Regulations, 2022 (for short the “TOB Regulations, 2022”).

5. At the very outset, we must state that none of the Petitioners before us have pressed the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Regulation 115, and therefore, we are not entering upon this issue and leave it open to be decided in an appropriate case.

6. To put succinctly, according to all the Petitioners, since the impugned review order substantially modifies the MYT Order dated 28^th March 2025, having far reaching consequences, all the stakeholders ought to have been heard, or at the very least, consulted, before passing the impugned review order. This has admittedly not been done, which makes the impugned review order vulnerable to challenge. This is, in a nutshell, the ground on which the impugned review order is challenged in all the above Writ Petitions.

FACTS:

7. Before we embark upon the inquiry as to whether there has been a breach of any mandatory provision/s or a breach of the principles of natural justice, it would be apposite to set out some brief facts. On 10^th June 2003, the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to consolidate the laws governing the power sector in India and to inter alia set up Regulatory Commissi