Petition of the CERC (Conduction of Business) Regulations for Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited and PTC India Limited – EQ

Summary:

—

### **1. Overview**
This is a **Record of Proceedings** from the **Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)** regarding **Petition No. 806/MP/2025**.

– **Petitioner:** Jindal India Power Limited (JIPL)
– **Respondents:**
– **Respondent No. 1:** Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited (BSPHCL)
– **Respondent No. 2:** PTC India Limited
– **Date of Hearing:** 17th April 2026
– **Nature of Petition:** Filed under **Sections 79, 142, 146 and 149** of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with **Regulations 65 and 70(2)** of the *CERC (Conduction of Business) Regulations, 2023*.

—

### **2. Subject Matter of the Petition**

The Petition has been filed against the Respondents for:

> **”Wilful disobedience and failure to execute this Hon’ble Commission’s final order dated 12.4.2024 passed in Petition No. 109/MP/2022.”**

In simple terms, Jindal India Power Limited alleges that **BSPHCL and PTC India Limited have deliberately disobeyed and failed to implement a final CERC order** that was issued over two years ago (dated 12th April 2024 in Petition No. 109/MP/2022).

—

### **3. Hearing Details – 17th April 2026**

**Coram (Bench):**
– Shri Jishnu Barua – Chairperson
– Shri Ramesh Babu V. – Member
– Shri Harish Dudani – Member
– Shri Ravinder Singh Dhillon – Member

**Present for Petitioner (Jindal India Power Ltd.):**
– Shri Hemant Singh, Advocate
– Shri Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwai, Advocate
– Shri Harshit Singh, Advocate
– Shri Devyanshu Sharma, Advocate

**Present for Respondent No. 1 (BSPHCL):**
– Shri Umesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate
– Shri Shivam Sinha, Advocate
– Shri Ravi Nair, Advocate
– Shri Kumar Saurav, Advocate
– Ms. Janhavi Johar, Advocate

**Present for Respondent No. 2 (PTC India Ltd.):**
– Shri Ravi Kishore, Advocate

—

### **4. Key Proceedings & Directions**

– The hearing was conducted **through virtual mode**.
– **BSPHCL (Respondent No. 1)** requested **four weeks’ time** to file its reply.
– **Jindal India Power (Petitioner)** opposed this request, arguing that **sufficient opportunities had already been granted** to the Respondents earlier.

**Commission’s Decision:**
– The matter was **adjourned**.
– The Commission granted **”the last opportunity”** to BSPHCL to file its reply. (The exact deadline is not specified in the visible text – page 2 cuts off after “file its reply on”)
– The next hearing is scheduled for **11th June 2026**.

—

## **Business Points / Key Takeaways**

| Business Aspect | Implication |
|—————-|————–|
| **Wilful Disobedience Allegation** | Jindal India Power is invoking serious provisions (Sections 142, 146, 149 – contempt-like powers of CERC) against BSPHCL and PTC for failing to comply with a prior final order dated 12.4.2024. |
| **Delayed Compliance** | The original order is over 2 years old (April 2024). BSPHCL has still not complied, leading to this enforcement petition. |
| **”Last Opportunity” Given** | CERC has explicitly stated that this is the **final chance** for BSPHCL to file its reply. Failure to comply could lead to **penal action** including fines or other enforcement under Section 142 (penalty for non-compliance) or perhaps even prosecution under Section 146 (false statement/refusal to give information) or Section 149 (contempt of authority). |
| **Next Hearing** | 11th June 2026 – if BSPHCL fails to reply by then, the Commission may proceed ex-parte or issue coercive orders. |
| **PTC India Limited** is also a respondent | PTC is a major power trading intermediary. Its role in the alleged non-compliance of the 2024 order is unclear from this snippet, but it may have been obligated to act under the same order. |
| **Enforcement Risk for State Utilities** | This case highlights the continuing challenge of enforcing CERC orders against State-owned discoms/holding companies. CERC is now taking a stricter stance (granting “last opportunity”) which may lead to actual penalties. |
| **Potential for Penalties** | Under Section 142, CERC can impose a penalty of up to ₹1 lakh per day of default (subject to a maximum as per Electricity Act). For prolonged non-compliance, this can be substantial. |
| **Contempt Proceedings** | If BSPHCL remains non-compliant, CERC may initiate contempt proceedings under Section 149 (which borrows powers from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) against the officers responsible. |

—

For more information please see below link: