SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
M/s Tissa Hydro Power Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.8610 of 2025, CWP No. 1003 of 2026, CWP No. 1019 of 2026, CWP No. 11256 of 2025, CWP No. 13095 of 2025, CWP No. 13220 of 2025, CWP No. 13223 of 2025, CWP No. 14042 of 2025, CWP No. 14086 of 2025, CWP No. 1519 of 2026, CWP No. 1521 of 2026, CWP No. 1522 of 2026, CWP No. 2024 of 2026, CWP No. 10230 of 2024, CWP No.1520 of 2026
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocates, Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Ms. Shalini Thakur, Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Mr. Shivalik Bhaik, Mr. Vivek Negi, with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Verma and Mr. Saurav Upadhyay, Advocates, Mr. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate,

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 jurisdictional defect or natural justice violation.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 86 and 111 - Tariff Regulations - Operation and Maintenance Expenses - Fixation of normative O&M charges for small hydro power projects and renewable energy generators using interconnection facilities at sub-stations up to 33 kV - Order passed pursuant to public notices, stakeholder inputs and hearing - Challenge to order and consequent demand notices by writ petitions held not maintainable due to availability of statutory appeal to Appellate Tribunal - No exception to alternate remedy as order within jurisdiction, followed due process, and O&M charges form part of aggregate revenue requirement - Regulatory tariff determination overrides contracts as statutory function. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

(B) Article 226 - Alternate Remedy - Writ jurisdiction discretionary; not exercisable where efficacious statutory remedy available under complete code like Electricity Act - Exceptions limited to jurisdictional error, natural justice violation, fundamental rights infringement, or vires challenge - Expert regulatory commissions and appellate tribunal handle tariff matters; courts avoid interference to preserve sectoral expertise and consistency. (Paras 4(i), 4(iii), 4(v))

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions by generating companies challenging regulatory commission's order fixing normative O&M charges arising from petition on disputes over bay charges, after public consultation process initiated per prior order.

Findings of Court:
Writ petitions disposed reserving liberty to pursue statutory remedies; time spent in proceedings not to count for limitation.

Issues: Maintainability of writ petitions against regulatory order on normative O&M charges given statutory appeal provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Electricity Act constitutes exhaustive regime vesting tariff functions including O&M norms in specialized commissions; bypassing appeal to expert tribunal via writ not permissible absent extraordinary circumstances like lack of jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to seek statutory remedy.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of writs challenging hperc normative o&m order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. o&m charges integral to tariff; jurisdiction under electricity act. (Para 3)
3. statutory appeal to aptel bars writ absent exceptional circumstances. (Para 4)
4. petitions dismissed; liberty for statutory remedies. (Para 5)

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 proposal to fix normative O&M charges of bay(s) was required to undergo a prior publication process by floating the proposal on the website of HPERC, so as to provide equal opportunity to all stakeholders to file their objections/suggestions. Pursuant to the directions issued in the order dated 16.10.2023, a proposal was placed before the Commission, which was registered as Suo Motu Petition No. 08/2023, on the subject of Fixation of normative O&M charges to be paid by the Small Hydro Power Project(s) and other RE generators connected at Sub-Stations owned by the Distribution Licensee where maximum nominal voltage level at any point in such Sub- stations does not excess 33 kV. The Commission proceed to fix normative O&M charges to be paid by Small Hydro Power Producers and other Renewable Energy Generators selling power to the Distribution Licensee, as well as Renewable Energy Developers selling power under open access for utilizing its infrastructure. HPERC invited public objections and suggestions by issuing public notices in newspapers as well as on its website. HPERC, vide its letter dated 06.11.2023, requested all major stakeholders, including the Small Hydro Project Welfare Association, State Government, Directorate of Energy HIMURJA, and the Distribution Licensee, to submit their objections/suggestions in terms of the aforesaid public notices. HPERC received comments/suggestions on the draft proposal from some of the stake holders. ‘Bonafide Himachalies Hydro Power Developers Association’ approached HPERC for sharing data inputs, which was allowed to be collected from HPSEBL. Public hearing in the matter was held on 06.12.2023. Thereafter, order was passed by HPERC on 23.02.2024 in Suo Motu Petition No. 08/2023 fixing normative O&M charges. Petitioners are aggrieved against order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the HPERC in Suo Moto Petition No.8 of 2023, as also the consequent demand notices issued to them by the HPSEBL on the strength of above order.

3. According to the petitioners, HPERC lacks the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order fixing O&M charges. The impugned order has re-written the contracts entered into between the parties fixing the O&M charges for use of interconnection facilities. It has also been submitted that though in some cases, O&M charges agreement have been entered into between parties and those agreements have been rewritten by HPERC under the impugned order, but in number of the cases, such agreements have not be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top