The Court upheld that available appellate remedies under the Electricity Act must be pursued before judicial intervention, affirming the Commission's non-compliance finding for RPPO obligations.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioner is stated to be a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 having several manufacturing units and branch offices, all over India. The present case relates to captive co-generation of electricity for captive use at its industrial unit at Sarapaka Village in Bhadradri - Kothagudem District. It is stated that the 1^st respondent Commission issued Regulation No.2 of 2018 pursuant to Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, providing for Renewable Power Purchase Obligations (RPPO) of distribution licensees, open access consumers and captive consumers of captive power plants to purchase renewable energy (solar and non-solar) or renewable energy certificates to the extent specified in the said Regulation. The 1st respondent suo moto initiated proceedings in O.P.No. 22 of 2023 by issuing public notice for determination of the compliance of Renewable Power Purchase Obligation of obligated entities for FY 2019-20 (including shortfall of FY 2018-19), FY 2020-21 (including shortfall of FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20) and FY 2021-22 (including shortfall of FY 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21) based upon the report of the 2nd Respondent (State Load Despatch Center for Telangana).

1.1. It is further contended that petitioner filed objections before the 1^st respondent and also appeared at the public hearing conducted by it and made oral submissions in support of its written objections. There is no RPPO obligation arising out of captive consumption from cogeneration from black liquor which is a renewable energy source. The 1^st respondent, without considering the case of petitioner, shown them as non-compliant in Annexure-V by its Order dated 27.03.2024. According to petitioner, in the absence of a speaking order with respect to their case, they could not have been held as non-compliant.

1.2. It is stated, aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed a Review Petition in R.P. No. 1 of 2024 in O.P.No. 22 of 2023 before the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The 1^st respondent, without considering the Review Petition in proper perspective, dismissed the same by its order dated 25.09.2024, impugned in this Writ Petition, without giving any cogent reasons. Petitioner therefore, approached this Court.

2. In the counter, the 1^st respondent states that petitioner’s statements are borne out from the official record only to the limited extent that Commission had notified initiation of proceedings by way of a public notice in O.P. No. 22 of 2023 and their name appeared in the statement uploaded on the website of this respondent indicating non-compliance of Renewable Power Purchase Obligation under the applicable regulations. It is admitted that petitioner submitted its objections and representations in response to the said public notice, which were placed before the Commission. The submissions relied upon by petitioner form part of the record and were duly considered and discussed by the Commission while passing the original order dated 27.03.2024. If petitioner was aggrieved by the consequences flowing from the original order dated 27.03.2024, including the act of placing petitioner in non-compliance list and directing payment of forbearance price as per RPPO framework, petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy of Appeal before the competent appellate authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further pointed out that even in the present proceedings, petitioner has not clarified whether it is a non-obligated entity, whether it claims coverage under any pending litigation before any superior forum, or whether