NDLI: Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations 2011 Jurisdiction to decide validity of regulations Regn. 44.2(d)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 – Regn. 44.2(d) – Jurisdiction to decide validity of regulations – The grievance of the appellant arises from the fact that regn. 44.2(d) prescribed a tighter standard for its thermal generating station Dahanu TPS as compared to other generating stations in the State – Petition filed by the appellant before Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) – Appellant requested for relaxation of the norms and to bring it in the line with the normative Station Heat Rate (SHR) – MERC held that it had considered the norms for SHR based on the MYT regulations and it did not find any merit in altering the MYT norms for SHR – The appellant filed an appeal u/s.111 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) – Also, appellant instituted a Writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court for the purpose of challenging regn 44.2(d) which specifies a separate SHR for the Dahanu TPS as compared to other generating stations in the State – The High Court dismissed the Writ petition and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant, and held that having approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, the appellant was not justified in moving the High Court u/Art.226 “on the same issue” when the Tribunal was in a position to provide adequate relief – On appeal, held: The position in law is established by the judgment of Constitution Bench in PTC India Limited case that while the Tribunal may decide upon a dispute involving the interpretation of a regulation, for which an appeal under Section 111 of the Act would be maintainable, no appeal can lie before the Tribunal on the validity of a regulation – Thus, High Court was not right in holding that the Writ petition u/Art.226 was not maintainable – Indeed, a challenge to the validity of the regulations framed by the MERC could lie only before the High Court – Thus, the imposition of costs for having adopted the remedy u/Art.226 was unjustified – However, there is no infirmity in the impugned regulation and accordingly ultimate conclusion of the High Court to dismiss the Writ petition u/Art.226 affirmed – Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.61, 82, 111 and 181 – MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005 – National Tariff Policy, 2006 – Constitution of India – Art.226 – Jurisdiction. MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 – Regn. 44.2(d) – Validity of – Plea of discrimination by the appellant – The grievance of the appellant arises from the fact that a tighter standard or norm has been prescribed for its thermal generating station Dahanu TPS as compared to other generating stations in the State – The discrimination, according to the appellant, lied in a statutory regulations determining the Station Heat Rate (SHR) – Held: The power to frame regulations is of a legislative nature – The Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) report was an input before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in carrying out that exercise – MERC followed the statutory procedures laid down for the determination of tariffs – It took into account factors which it is mandated by the statute to consider – The National Tariff Policy, suggestions of stakeholders as well as the assessment carried out by the CPRI were duly considered – Thus, the present case does not fall in the paradigm of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness to warrant the interference of the Supreme Court – Regulation 44.2(d) of the MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 does not suffer from any constitutional or statutory infirmity – National Tariff Policy, 2006.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 63
Petitioner	Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Respondent	State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
SCR	[2019] 1 S.C.R. 886
Judgement Date	2019-01-21
Case Number	879

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Ors.

Unitech Limited & Ors. Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (tsiic) & Ors.

Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Goa

Venkateshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Bhimandas Ambwani (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Delhi Power Company Limited & Ors.

Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.

Santosh Sood Vs. Gajendra Singh & Ors.

Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Ors.

Unitech Limited & Ors. Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (tsiic) & Ors.

Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Goa

Venkateshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Reliance Energy Limited & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Bhimandas Ambwani (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Delhi Power Company Limited & Ors.

Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.

Santosh Sood Vs. Gajendra Singh & Ors.

Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.