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
| 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
Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Rain Calcining Ltd.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd.
Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India
U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd.
Sterlite Ltd. v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission
K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others
Ramayana Ispat Private Limited and another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & anr.
State of U.P. & ors. vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others Vs. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited and Others
Haryana Power Purchase Centre Versus Sasan Power Limited and others
PTC India Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Radha Krishan Industries Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Whirlpool Corporation Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.