Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
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 order passed by the respondent—Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC), Shimla on 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 Power Projects in the State. HPERC decided the petition on 16.10.2023, observing that the prop
Writ petitions challenging regulatory fixation of normative O&M charges as tariff component not maintainable due to statutory appeal to expert Appellate Tribunal under Electricity Act, absent jurisdi....
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, ....
The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over a writ petition due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Electricity Act, affirming that tariff regulation issues fall ....
Tariff determination for hydro projects with enhanced capacity, binding nature of prior PPAs on successors, and writ jurisdiction limited; exclusive domain of regulatory commission, not courts, to fi....
The CERC possesses both regulatory and adjudicatory powers under the Electricity Act, allowing it to impose compensation for delays while retaining the framework under which such determinations are m....
Writ under Article 226 not maintainable against regulatory order where statutory appeal available, issues involve disputed facts/law, and no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation; exhaust....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation and enforcement of Regulation 17 of the CERC Tariff Regulations fall within the adjudicatory powers of the Central Electric....
The interpretation of tariff regulations concerning power supply and agreements lies exclusively with the regulatory commission, and disputes must be adjudicated by it rather than the High Court.
The Ombudsman erred in failing to recognize the commercial relationship between the parties, which affected the determination of electricity tariff under the 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
