https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461836 The Electricity Act was treated as a complete code for electricity disputes, so writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not appropriate where efficacious statutory remedies before the State Commission and Appellate Tribunal were available, especially after delay in approaching the High Court. In tariff adoption under Section 63, the State Commission was not confined to a mechanical approval role: read with Section 86(1)(b) and the bidding guidelines, it could examine whether the quoted tariff was market-aligned and reject bids that were not. The directions compelling procurement from the bidder were therefore held unsustainable, and consumer and public interest were treated as relevant to tariff adoption. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461836 The Electricity Act was treated as a complete code for electricity disputes, so writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not appropriate where efficacious statutory remedies before the State Commission and Appellate Tribunal were available, especially after delay in approaching the High Court. In tariff adoption under Section 63, the State Commission was not confined to a mechanical approval role: read with Section 86(1)(b) and the bidding guidelines, it could examine whether the quoted tariff was market-aligned and reject bids that were not. The directions compelling procurement from the bidder were therefore held unsustainable, and consumer and public interest were treated as relevant to tariff adoption. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461836