Standby electricity charges fall within tariff regulation, and flawed commission procedure justified remand for fresh determination.
Standby charges for electricity supply were treated as part of tariff and pricing for bulk power, bringing the dispute within the State Electricity Regulatory Commission's statutory jurisdiction under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. Once the Commission was constituted, prior State Government directions could not determine or quantify those charges, and unilateral enhancement by the licensee was impermissible under the regulatory scheme. The Commission's quantification was also procedurally flawed because the required quorum was not properly involved in the consultative process, so fresh consideration was warranted. The High Court's remand for de novo decision and its interim payment arrangement were upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether the dispute concerning standby charges payable by BSES to TPC fell within the jurisdiction of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission and whether the State Government's prior order could govern the controversy. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Commission's order and remitting the matter for de novo consideration, while also making an interim arrangement for payment pending fresh decision.
Issue (i): Whether the dispute concerning standby charges payable by BSES to TPC fell within the jurisdiction of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission and whether the State Government's prior order could govern the controversy.
Analysis: The dispute was not treated as a mere private sharing arrangement but as one concerning the price or charges payable for standby supply, which formed part of tariff for bulk or wholesale supply of electricity. Under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, tariff determination, use of transmission facilities, and regulation of procurement and pricing were within the State Commission's statutory domain. The Act had overriding effect, and after the Commission was constituted the State Government lacked authority to determine or quantify such charges. The earlier governmental directions could not displace the Commission's jurisdiction, and unilateral enhancement of charges by the licensee was also impermissible under the statutory scheme and regulations.
Conclusion: The dispute was within the Commission's jurisdiction, and the State Government's order did not bind the parties after the statutory regime had come into force.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Commission's order and remitting the matter for de novo consideration, while also making an interim arrangement for payment pending fresh decision.
Analysis: The Commission's process was found to be procedurally flawed because the formula for quantification had been worked out through consultations in which the Chairman did not participate, although the quorum required participation of all three members. The matter therefore required fresh consideration by the Commission in accordance with law. The interim arrangement made by the High Court was treated as a provisional measure based on broad considerations, and no interference was considered necessary because the final liability could be adjusted after the Commission's decision.
Conclusion: The remand for de novo consideration and the interim arrangement were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the remand to the Commission was sustained, and the parties were left to have their rights and liabilities finally determined by the Commission in accordance with the statutory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory commission is vested with overriding power to determine tariff and related pricing for electricity supply, disputes over standby charges forming part of the supply cost fall within its jurisdiction, and a procedurally unfair determination made without the required quorum can validly be set aside for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
