Supreme Court says even non-consumers can file complaints before power regulators if it’s about public interest. Torrent Power’s appeal was dismissed as the Court supported regulatory review in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday clearly stated that State Electricity Regulatory Commissions have the power to hear petitions not just from consumers but also from any person, if the issue raised concerns public interest.
This ruling came from a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra during the hearing of an appeal filed by Torrent Power Limited. Torrent was challenging an order given earlier by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
The background of this case goes back to 2012, when a private individual filed a petition before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC). The individual wanted a detailed investigation into the distribution franchisee agreement between Torrent Power and Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd concerning the Agra urban area.
Torrent Power objected to this petition and argued that under the Electricity Act, 2003, only consumers had the right to file such petitions before the Commission. However, this argument was rejected first by UPERC, then by APTEL, and now finally by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of broader participation and clearly upheld the authority of the Commission, saying:
“The jurisdiction under Sections 128 and 129 can be exercised by the State Commission suo motu or based on credible material placed before it by any person, even a non-consumer, if the subject matter impacts the regulatory framework or affects public interest.”
The Court explained that the powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are not meant for resolving private disputes, but are inquisitorial (fact-finding) and regulatory in nature.
The Bench also strongly dismissed the argument made by Torrent that the distribution franchisee agreement was a purely private contractual matter and not open to oversight by the regulatory body.
The Court clearly stated:
“The franchisee model is recognised under the Electricity Act. Though the licensee remains responsible, the conduct of the franchisee affects supply efficiency, billing, and tariff impact. The Commission cannot be ousted from examining such effects.”
The top court also supported the decision of UPERC to review the performance of the franchisee and appoint an expert committee to carry out a fact-finding inquiry.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the original petitioner had not asked for any personal gain or private benefit, but had simply requested the Commission to use its regulatory powers to examine the agreement and its impacts.
In its words:
“The proceedings under Sections 128 and 129 are not adversarial. These are statutory powers meant to protect larger consumer interest. Anyone who brings relevant information to the Commission performs a public function.”
With these firm observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Torrent Power and upheld the decisions made by UPERC and APTEL.
- Senior Advocate Shyam Divan represented Torrent Power.
- Advocate Pradeep Misra appeared for the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
- Advocate Sanjay Kapur represented the original petitioner who brought the matter before the Commission.
CASE TITLE:
Torrent Power vs UP Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
