Summary
The Gujarat Commission extended a solar project’s tariff control period through inherent powers despite the power-purchase agreement’s lower-tariff consequence for delayed commissioning. In concurring opinions, the Court held that inherent procedural powers could not supply that substantive relief. It set aside the extension while preserving any legally available application for tariff redetermination.
Issues
- Whether inherent powers or the time-extension regulation authorised a project-specific extension of the tariff control period.
- Whether an earlier remand and dismissal of appeals settled that power conclusively.
- Whether statutory tariff redetermination remained available.
Provisions considered
- Sections61,62,64 and86, Electricity Act,2003Tariff determination and amendment must follow statutory powers and procedure, including protection of consumers and public participation. (¶¶ Kurian2–4, Kurian26–35)
- Regulations80–82 and85, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations,2004Inherent powers do not override specific statutory procedures or alter substantive PPA rights; regulation85 does not extend contractual commissioning deadlines or the tariff control period. (¶¶ Kurian9–10, Kurian32–37, Banumathi14–18)
Held
- The earlier dismissal of appeals against a remand did not endorse the Tribunal’s view of inherent power. The Supreme Court had expressly required independent consideration of the whole issue under law, leaving the legal question open. (¶¶ Kurian24, Banumathi11–13)
- The PPA expressly assigned the lower of the original tariff and the tariff effective at commissioning if the project was late. The Commission could not use inherent powers to extend the control period and thereby vary that bargain. Regulation85 concerned procedural time prescriptions, not performance of contractual commissioning obligations. (¶¶ Kurian25, Kurian32–38, Banumathi17–18, Banumathi28)
- Statutory authority to determine or amend tariff was distinguished from inherent procedural power. Generic tariff alteration requires the prescribed statutory procedure and consideration of consumer interests; these powers cannot be replaced by an inherent-power order granting substantive relief to one party. (¶¶ Kurian26–35, Banumathi21–26)
- The producer retained liberty to seek tariff redetermination if otherwise permissible in law. Both parties’ available contentions remained open, including disputed commissioning, liquidated-damages and cost issues; no redetermined tariff was granted by this judgment. (¶¶ Kurian38–39, Banumathi19–20, Banumathi26–27)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned Commission and Tribunal orders set aside. Producer may pursue tariff redetermination if permissible under law, with all parties’ contentions open; no costs.