Summary
The High Court’s cursory rejection of a biomass generator’s challenge to amended renewable-energy tariff regulations failed to address the pleaded discrimination, prejudice and competence issues. The Supreme Court restored the writ petition for fresh consideration without deciding the validity of the amendments. Judicial review, rather than an appeal or review before the electricity authorities, was the appropriate remedy for this challenge to the regulations and the order culminating in their framing.
Issues
- Whether the High Court adequately adjudicated the challenge to differential application of revised tariff norms within the same control period.
- Whether validity of the amended regulations could be challenged through judicial review.
Held
- Merely reciting rival submissions and the regulations, then rejecting discrimination without reasons, did not constitute adjudication of the challenge. Detailed submissions and comparative material asserting prejudice required consideration. (¶¶ 5, 8–9)
- Validity of electricity regulations is examinable in judicial review proceedings before courts, rather than by appeal or review. The writ petition was the proper remedy against the order that culminated in the challenged amendments. (¶ 10)
- The matter required fresh High Court consideration of all relevant issues; no opinion was expressed on the merits or validity of the amended regulations. (¶ 9–11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the writ petition restored for fresh decision on its merits in accordance with law. Pending applications disposed of; no costs.