Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State Commission could invoke its inherent powers under the regulatory framework to extend the control period fixed in a tariff order and thereby alter the tariff terms incorporated in the power purchase agreement.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Electricity Act, 2003 vests the State Commission with the power to determine tariff and regulate electricity procurement, but that power must be exercised in the manner provided by the Act and the regulations. The inherent power saved by the Conduct of Business Regulations is procedural in nature and is available only where the Act and Rules are silent; it cannot be used to create or enlarge substantive rights or to vary contractual obligations settled between the parties. The control period in a tariff order is not merely a procedural timeline and cannot be extended under Regulation 85 or the inherent power clauses so as to rewrite the agreed tariff position in the PPA. Since tariff fixation under the statutory order had been incorporated into the contract and public interest as well as consumer interest were implicated, the Commission could not bypass the prescribed statutory route.
Conclusion: The Commission had no authority to extend the control period by invoking inherent powers, and it could not vary the tariff terms of the PPA on that basis.