Supreme Court Bars Haryana Discoms from Contradicting Their Stance Taken Before CERC

Supreme Court Bars Haryana Discoms from Contradicting Their Stance Taken Before CERC

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's orders upholding the power purchase agreements between Haryana discoms and Adani Power.

The Supreme Court made an observation on Thursday that state instrumentalities should not be permitted to challenge regulatory agencies' assessments and methodologies after initially accepting them. This came as part of the case Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & anr v. Adani Power Mundra Ltd and ors.

The Apex Court Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath held that the Haryana Utilities were engaging in approbation and reprobation. The Court determined that it was unacceptable for them to simultaneously express contradictory views and that this behaviour could not be permitted.

“After accepting before the CERC that they would adopt the methodology as given in the case of GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited, it would not be appropriate, in our view, on the part of the appellants, which are, after all, instrumentalities of the State, to change its stand after final orders are passed by the CERC," the Bench noted.

In the context of appeals against the Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's decision to uphold the power purchase agreements between Haryana discoms and Adani Power, the Court made the aforementioned observation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's (CERC) rulings.

It was pointed out the appellant had not challenged the computation methodology for relief due to the coal shortage resulting from a change in the law before the CERC.

The Supreme Court commented that there was no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal and the CERC had based their judgments on extraneous factors or without taking the available material on record into account.

The Supreme Court stated that the two expert bodies' concurrent factual findings could only have been challenged if they had not considered mandatory statutory provisions, if their decisions were based on extraneous factors, or if the decisions were evidently arbitrary and unlawful.

As a result, the matter was disposed of.

The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate MG Ramachandran, while Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the contesting respondent before the Supreme Court.