0
0
A short summary of today’s order:
The attached High Court Order is a judgment of the Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) dated 3rd November 2025, in a group of writ petitions led by:
Writ Petition (L) No. 19437 of 2025 — O2 Renewable Energy VII Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) & Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL)
Key Extract & Summary:
1. Common Issue:
- All petitions challenged the Review Order dated 25 June 2025 issued by MERC, which substantially modified the original Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) Order dated 28 March 2025.
2. Grounds of Challenge:
- The review order was passed without hearing stakeholders, violating principles of natural justice and mandatory MERC procedural regulations (Transactions of Business Regulations, 2022).
- Petitioners argued that the changes had far-reaching consequences for consumers, solar developers, and industries.
3. Petitioners Included:
- Various renewable energy developers (O2 Renewable, Sunsure Solar, Radiance, Fourth Partner, etc.)
- Industry associations (Vidarbha Industries Association, Alloy Steel Producers Association, Green Energy Association)
- Large consumers (UltraTech Cement, CtrlS Datacentres, NTT Data Centres).
4. Impugned MERC Modifications:
- Banking rules for renewable energy drastically restricted.
- Hotels’ tariff category changed from Industrial (HT-I) to Commercial (HT-II) — increasing their rates.
- Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of MSEDCL increased ex-parte, significantly raising consumer tariffs.
5. Petitioners’ Argument:
- Review order was not a clerical correction but a major policy revision done without consultation or notice, contrary to Regulation 28(f) of TOB Regulations and Section 64(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
6. MERC’s Defence:
- Claimed tariff determination is a legislative/regulatory (not adjudicatory) function, so public hearing is not mandatory in review proceedings.
- Asserted power to amend tariffs under its inherent jurisdiction.
- Suggested petitioners have an alternate remedy before APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity).
7. Court’s Findings (Extract):
- The Court noted that MERC’s review order was not for minor corrections but substantially altered key provisions, affecting multiple stakeholders.
- It observed non-compliance with mandatory hearing provisions and lack of transparency.
- The Court concluded that such an ex-parte modification without notice violates the principles of natural justice and the regulatory framework.
8. Outcome:
- The High Court set aside the impugned MERC Review Order dated 25 June 2025.
- Directed MERC to rehear the matter after giving notice to all affected stakeholders and pass a fresh order as per law.
