LexJAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. versus RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2028 : 2025 INSC 592 Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association & Anr. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 8862-8868 of 2022) 29 April 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue relates to the determination of the Cross-Subsidy Surcharges by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.42(2) – Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 – Regulations 90, 2(a)(60) – Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) – Determination of: Held: The CSS has to be determined based on the prevailing tariff rates – Neither the 2003 Act nor the 2014 Regulations makes the determination of the CSS simultaneously with the determination of the tariff mandatory – The determination of CSS is not necessarily a part of the tariff determination process – The CSS can be determined along with the tariff – But, it can be determined separately in accordance with Regulation 90 based on the prevailing rate of tariff – In fact, as per Regulation 90, the tariff payable by the relevant category of consumers is the basis for the CSS – Thus, APTEL erred in holding that the determination of the tariff and the determination of the CSS should always coincide – While determining rates of the CSS w.e.f 01.12.2016, the commission relied upon the tariff fixed in terms of the order dated 22.09.2016, which was the prevailing tariff as of 01.12.2016 – The CSS is in the nature of compensation qua the tariff which the distribution licensees would have received from the open access consumers but for their availing power from other sources – Hence, the CSS must be based on the applicable retail tariff recoverable during the relevant period – When the CSS was determined based on the prevailing rates of tariff, APTEL ought not to have found fault with the State Commission’s determination of rates of the CSS – Impugned judgment of the APTEL set aside – Order of the State Commission restored. [Paras 15, 19-21] * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2029 Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Ors. v. Rajasthan Textile Mills Association & Anr. Etc.. Case Law Cited Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. [2014] 13 SCR 426 : (2014) 8 SCC 444 – referred to. Tata Power Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., Appeal No. 107 of 2013 (before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity); Reliance Infrastructure Limited (R-infra) v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., Appeal No. 178 of 2011 (before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) : 2013 SCC OnLine APTEL 150; D.P. Chirania v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., Appeal No. 16 of 2014 (before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) : 2015 SCC OnLine APTEL 75 – referred to. List of Acts Electricity Act, 2003; Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2014; National Tariff Policy, 2016. List of Keywords Cross-subsidy Surcharges (CSS); Determination of the CSS; Prevailing rates of tariff; Distribution licensees; Open access customers; Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission; Subsidised consumers; Subsidising consumers; Statutory charge; Cross-subsidisation; Retail tariff; Tariff determination process; Applicable retail tariff. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 8862-8868 of 2022 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2022 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi in AN Nos. 14, 49, 54, 167, 168, 169 and 170 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: M.G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Poorva Saigal, Shubham Arya, Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Ms. Reeha Singh, Aneesh Bajaj. 2030 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Advs. for the Respondents: Anand Ganesan, Ms. Swapna Seshadri, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Amal Nair, Ishaan George, Amit Verma, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Nanadita Chauhan, Ms. Tijal Thakur, M/S. Khaitan & Co., P.N Bhandari, Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Vaibhav Jain, Keshav Khandelwal, Shantanu Sagar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECT 1. These are the statutory appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the 2003 Act’) against a common judgment delivered by the Ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.