Court Decision
2024-12-18
Subject: Energy Law - Renewable Energy
In a significant ruling, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity addressed the legality of the termination of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM) concerning solar rooftop photovoltaic (SRTPV) systems. The appellants, who had entered into PPAs with BESCOM, challenged the termination on the grounds that it was unjustified and contrary to established guidelines.
The appellants argued that BESCOM's termination was based on two main grounds: delays in commissioning the SRTPV plants and unauthorized extensions of existing structures for panel installation. They contended that the 180-day timeframe for installation, as per BESCOM's guidelines, should be calculated from the date of approval for installation, which they claimed was issued on April 15, 2016. BESCOM, on the other hand, maintained that the appellants failed to meet the stipulated deadline and violated guidelines by extending their roofs without authorization.
The Tribunal meticulously examined the guidelines set forth by BESCOM regarding the installation of SRTPV systems. It concluded that the 180-day period for installation should indeed commence from the date of approval, which was April 15, 2016. The court noted that BESCOM had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that the appellants had violated the guidelines. Furthermore, it highlighted that the approval letter issued by BESCOM was valid and that the appellants had acted in good faith based on this approval.
The Tribunal also found that BESCOM's inspections, conducted before the expiration of the 180-day period, were premature and unjustified. The court emphasized that the appellants could not be held accountable for delays when the inspection was conducted before the deadline.
Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring BESCOM's termination of the PPAs as illegal and arbitrary. The court quashed the termination letters and revived the original PPAs, affirming that the appellants were entitled to the tariff rate specified in their agreements. This ruling not only reinstates the agreements but also reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines in the renewable energy sector.
The decision underscores the need for regulatory bodies to act within the framework of established guidelines and to ensure that their actions are justified and transparent.
#SolarEnergy #LegalJudgment #PowerPurchaseAgreement
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
Imposition of penalty for delay in commissioning of plant as per PPA is justified, termination of PPA not.
(1) Appeal to Supreme Court – Requirement under Section 125 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not merely a ‘question of a law’ but a ‘substantial question of law’ – APTEL as an appellate body is to hear ap....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.