Writ jurisdiction and premature charge demand fail where the levy rests on struck-down regulations and project commencement has not occurred.

Writ jurisdiction was held to remain available where the challenge was not merely contractual but targeted a demand founded on regulations already struck down; the existence of an alternative statutory forum did not bar Article 226 relief. The court also held that demand notices for SLDC charges, transmission charges and monthly transaction charges were premature because the project had not commenced and the commercial operation date had not been declared. As the impugned demand rested on an invalid regulatory basis and was raised before the operative stage of the project, the consequential notice and email were quashed, while the respondents were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the alternative forum under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003; (ii) whether the demand notice and consequential email demanding SLDC charges, transmission charges and monthly transaction charges before commencement of the project were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the alternative forum under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Analysis: The dispute was not treated as a purely contractual one. The demand was founded on regulations that had already been struck down, and the challenge was therefore one of jurisdictional illegality arising from consequential action based on an invalid regulatory foundation. In such circumstances, the availability of a statutory forum did not bar recourse to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the demand notice and consequential email demanding SLDC charges, transmission charges and monthly transaction charges before commencement of the project were sustainable.

Analysis: The Wheeling and Banking Agreement required payment of applicable charges in relation to use of the network, but the project had not commenced and the commercial operation date had not been declared. On that factual basis, the levy of charges for the period covered by the impugned demand was premature. The impugned actions were also founded on 2022 Regulations, which had been struck down, and therefore lacked legal sanctity. The respondents were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law and after due process.

Conclusion: The impugned demand notice and consequential email were unsustainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded because the impugned levy was premised on an invalid regulatory basis and was raised before the project had commenced, so the consequential demand could not be sustained in law.

---