Mumbai High court gives relief to MERC and has rejected DSPA writ petition. Directed to reach APTEL – EQ

Summary:

—

### Key Business Issues in Dispute

The solar power companies primarily objected to MERC’s changes on three commercial fronts:

1. **Time of Day (ToD) Tariff Changes:** Alleged reclassification of peak/off-peak hours (specifically 22:00 – 06:00) that would increase costs for solar power users.
2. **Banking Provisions:** Proposed restrictions on when banked solar energy could be drawn, potentially limiting its use to solar hours and hurting 24/7 industrial operations.
3. **Withdrawal of Night Hour Rebates:** Removal of existing rebates for power consumption during night hours, directly impacting the economics of solar projects that relied on banking daytime surplus for nighttime use.

### Core Legal Dispute (Before Reaching Merits)

The case was **not decided on the merits** of the tariff changes. Instead, the court ruled on a **preliminary objection** raised by MSEDCL and MERC:

– **Respondents’ Argument:** The Petitioners had an “equally efficacious alternate remedy” – an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) under **Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003**. Therefore, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.
– **Petitioners’ Argument:** The writ petition should be heard because the MERC’s order was:
– **Unreasoned** (violation of natural justice).
– In **disregard of a previous High Court order** dated Nov 3, 2025.
– Based on **inherent powers** that the High Court had previously disallowed.

### High Court’s Decision: Dismissed the Writ Petition

The court **upheld the respondents’ objection and dismissed the petition**, refusing to intervene under Article 226.

### Detailed Business-Focused Analysis & Reasoning

#### 1. The Order Was Not “Wholly Unreasoned” (Key Business Point)
– **The Court’s Finding:** While the MERC did not address every single objection from the 2,028 stakeholders, it **did provide clear reasoning** on the central legal issue – the interpretation of **Regulation 20.3** (which governs banking of electricity).
– **Business Implication for Solar Companies:** The court clarified that in tariff proceedings (which often have thousands of objections), the regulator is **not required to give a point-by-point rebuttal** of every stakeholder’s comment. As long as the core reasoning on the key legal provision is provided, the order is considered reasoned. This sets a high bar for future challenges alleging “lack of reasons.”

#### 2. Alternate Remedy Must Be Exhausted First
– **The Court’s Finding:** The existence of a statutory appeal to APTEL under Section 111 of the Electricity Act is a **powerful reason for the High Court to stay its hands**. The court will not allow parties to bypass the specialized tribunal (APTEL) simply because they prefer the High Court.
– **Business Implication:** Solar power companies and other electricity stakeholders must treat APTEL as the **primary forum** for challenging MERC’s tariff or review orders. Approaching the High Court directly under Article 226 will only succeed in rare, exceptional cases (e.g., complete lack of hearing, total absence of reasons).

#### 3. Risk of Conflicting Decisions is a Real Commercial Concern
– **The Court’s Finding:** Other solar associations (notably the **National Solar Energy Federation of India – NSEFI**) had already appealed the same MERC order to APTEL. Entertaining a separate writ petition in the High Court could lead to **conflicting rulings** on the same tariff order.
– **Business Implication:** When challenging a common regulatory order affecting an entire industry, stakeholders should coordinate. Filing multiple parallel proceedings in different forums (High Court and APTEL) creates legal uncertainty and risks inconsistent outcomes. The court strongly signaled that it will defer to APTEL when appeals are already pending there.

#### 4. Membership in an Association Has Practical Consequences
– **The Court’s Finding:** Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were members of the NSEFI, which had already filed an appeal before APTEL. Therefore, any favorable order from APTEL in NSEFI’s appeal would automatically benefit these petitioners.
– **Business Implication:** If you are a member of a trade association (like a solar power association) that is already pursuing a legal challenge, the court may expect you to **benefit through that association’s appeal** rather than filing a separate, independent proceeding. This promotes efficiency and prevents forum shopping.

#### 5. The MERC’s Use of “Inherent Powers” is a Merits Issue, Not a Jurisdictional One
– **The Court’s Finding:** Whether the MERC correctly invoked its inherent powers or violated the previous High Court order on this point is a **matter for APTEL to decide on the merits**. It does not, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory appeal process.
– **Business Implication:** Do not assume that every alleged legal error by MERC (even one related to non-compliance with a High Court direction) automatically opens the door to a fresh writ petition. If the error goes to the **merits of the decision**, APTEL is the correct forum.

### Final Binding Orders (Practical Directives)

| **Order** | **Business Impact** |
| :— | :— |
| **Writ Petition Dismissed** | Solar companies cannot directly approach the High Court against this MERC order. |
| **Relegated to APTEL** | The petitioners must file an appeal before APTEL under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. |
| **Limitation Condoned (6 weeks)** | If the petitioners file their appeal before APTEL within **6 weeks** (from April 24, 2026), any delay will be automatically condoned. **Action Point:** File immediately. |
| **Interim Relief Available** | Petitioners can file an interim application seeking a **stay** of the MERC order. APTEL is requested to hear it urgently. **Action Point:** Seek a stay to maintain status quo. |
| **No Opinion on Merits** | The High Court explicitly stated it has **not decided** whether the MERC’s tariff changes (ToD, Banking, rebates) are legally correct. **Action Point:** All substantive arguments remain open before APTEL. |

—-

For more information please see below link: