Supreme Court Declines Interference in Electricity Dispute, Upholds Expert Bodies’ Role

The Supreme Court on September 8, 2025 emphasised that when expert bodies like the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the Central Electricity Authority have considered the relevant material on record and taken a particular view, the court should be slow in interfering with the decisions taken by them.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Binod Chandran said that unless the court finds that the expert bodies have failed to take into consideration mandatory statutory provisions or if their decisions are based on extraneous considerations or are ex facie arbitrary and illegal, it will not be appropriate for the court to substitute its views with that of the expert bodies.

The appeals arose from a December 20, 2019 judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, which had upheld a March 20, 2018 order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi. One appeal was filed by Haryana Power Purchase Centre and two others and another by GRID Corporation of Orissa Limited.

The bench noted that the appeal was filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It observed that the provision makes an appeal tenable only on the grounds available under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which means it would be maintainable only on a substantial question of law.

The court recorded that there were concurrent findings of fact not only in the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, but also in the earlier order of February 3, 2016 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 79 during the first round of litigation.

The bench said, “The court will, therefore, have to be very slow in interfering with the said findings of fact. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse, arbitrary or in violation of the statutory provisions, it will not be permissible for this court to interfere with the same.”

The appellants argued that the question of interpretation of documents arose in the case and such a question would fall in the category of a substantial question of law. The bench rejected this contention, stating, “We do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.”

The court further noted that the appeals essentially challenged concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission on two different occasions and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in the impugned judgment. It said that the perusal of the orders revealed that they were based upon interpretation of documents and evidence on record.

While considering the appeal of Haryana Utilities, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Commission and the Tribunal that coal supply from all the sources has to be apportioned amongst all the three distribution companies in proportion to the energy supplied to them. The bench clarified that none of the distribution companies could claim priority for supply of power based on the prior date of agreement or the recital as to the source of coal.

The appeals were dismissed.

Case Title: Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) and Others vs GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited and Others

Judgment Date: September 8, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Binod Chandran