TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when statutory remedies under the Electricity Act were available and the challenge was raised belatedly; (ii) Whether, in tariff adoption under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, the State Commission could examine whether the quoted tariff was market-aligned and reject bids on that basis.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when statutory remedies under the Electricity Act were available and the challenge was raised belatedly.
Analysis: The Electricity Act was treated as a complete code for electricity disputes, with the State Commission and the Appellate Tribunal providing the proper forum for redress. The availability of an efficacious statutory remedy weighed against direct invocation of writ jurisdiction, and the long delay in approaching the High Court further undermined maintainability. No exceptional circumstance justifying bypass of the statutory forums was shown.
Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the challenge on this ground succeeds in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether, in tariff adoption under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, the State Commission could examine whether the quoted tariff was market-aligned and reject bids on that basis.
Analysis: Section 63 requires adoption of tariff only where it is discovered through a transparent bidding process in accordance with the Central Government guidelines. Read with the regulatory powers under Section 86(1)(b) and Clause 5.15 of the Bidding Guidelines, the State Commission was not reduced to a mere post office and could test whether quoted prices were aligned to prevailing market prices. The Court held that consumer interest and public interest would be defeated if the procurer were compelled to accept non-aligned bids merely because the process was otherwise transparent. The directions to compel procurement from the bidder were therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The State Commission could consider market alignment and reject non-aligned bids; the contrary view was rejected in favour of the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The impugned directions requiring procurement from the bidder were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, tariff adoption is conditioned not only by transparency and compliance with bidding guidelines, but also by the Commission's power to consider market alignment and consumer interest where the governing guidelines so permit.
TaxTMI 
