LexHARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE (HPPC) AND OTHERS versus GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 663 : 2025 INSC 1079 Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020) 08 September 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.] Issue for Consideration The APTEL dismissed the appeals (Appeal no.135 of 2018 along with Appeal no.54 of 2019) and upheld the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in Petition No.105/MP/20173. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – Electricity Appeals – When experts bodies like the CERC, the APTEL and the Central Electricity Authority have taken a particular view: Held: When various expert bodies like the CERC, the APTEL and the Central Electricity Authority after considering the relevant material on record have taken a particular view, the Court should be slow in interfering with the decisions taken by them – Unless the Court finds that the expert bodies have failed to take into consideration the mandatory statutory provisions or if their decisions are based on extraneous considerations or they are ex facie arbitrary and illegal, it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its views with that of the expert bodies. [Para 20] Electricity Act, 2003 – s.125 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Appeal u/s.125, when permissible: Held: The appeal u/s.125 of the 2003 Act is only permissible on any of the grounds as specified in s.100 of the CPC – As such, it is permissible only on substantial questions of law. [Para 23] Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.79, 125 – The two instant appeals challenge the same judgment and final order of the APTEL – The first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020 has been * Author 664 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports filed by Haryana Power Purchase Centre and two others (HPPC) whereas the second appeal being Civil Appeal No.3429 of 2020 has been filed by one GRIDCO – Earlier, Petition No.79/2013 came to be filed by GKEL-respondent no.1 before CERC against the Haryana Utilities for compensation due to force majeure events and change in law during the operation period – In the said petition, the GKEL-respondent no.1 sought adjustment of tariff on account of events of Change in Law which affected the power project during the operation period in order to restore GKEL to the same economic position that it would have been in if the concerned events had never occurred – CERC vide order dt. 03.02.2016 disposed of the said petition by allowing all such claims which fell within the parameters of Change in Law events – GKEL had preferred a similar petition being Petition No.112/MP/2015 against Bihar Utilities, the CERC vide order dt. 07.04.2017 disposed of the petition by allowing all such claims – The CERC vide another order dated 20.03.2018 disposed of the Petition No. 105 by directing the Haryana Utilities to pay the supplementary bills raised by GKEL – Appeals before the APTEL – The APTEL vide the common judgment and final order dated 20.12.2019 dismissed both the appeals and upheld the order of the CERC – Correctness: Held: In the first Appeal No. 1929 of 2020, there are concurrent findings of facts not only in the impugned judgment passed by the APTEL and the order passed by the CERC in Petition No.105, but also in the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the CERC in Petition No.79 during the first round of litigation – The Court will, therefore, have to be very slow in interfering with the said findings of fact – Unless it is found that the findings are perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the statutory provisions, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same – Also, this Court does not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal – The petition was filed by GKEL seeking relief on account of Change in Law on various grounds – One of the grounds was with regard to deviations from the New Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 (the NCDP) and changes in coal distribution policy of the Government of India and Coal India Limited – The perusal of paragraphs 54, 55 and 73 of the order passed by the CERC dated 03.02.2016 would reveal that it devised a formula for computing the Energy Charge Rate which required pro rata [2025] 9 S.C.R. 665 Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others allocation of coal among all three DISCOMS – It is pertinent to note that the Ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.