#Energy Law

Punjab and Haryana HC held Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot adjudicate without a legal member, quashing its order on a 66 KV line tap and upholding legal member requirement under Sec 86(1)(f) of Electricity Act 2003 for adjudicatory functions.

The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court order, reinstating the quash of a Rs 3.23 million provisional assessment and ruling that a Section 135 assessment can proceed only with proven theft and mens rea. This protects consumers from arbitrary disconnections based merely on suspicion.

Karnataka High Court strikes down KERC's dynamic 'Unitary Qualifying Ratio' (UQR) based on total actual consumption, ruling it violates Rule 3 of Electricity Rules 2005 and contradicts the Supreme Court's Dakshin Gujarat judgment. The Court mandates KERC to reconsider captive plant eligibility thresholds after due consultations, ensuring compliance with statutory proportionality.

Bombay High Court rules that electricity tariff classification depends on the actual usage of power, not the date of inspection. Utilities can recover differential charges retrospectively if the consumption was chargeable under the applicable tariff at the time, impacting industrial and commercial consumers facing reclassification disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that appellate authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot reject appeals outright on limitation grounds without first recording them and issuing a reasoned order. This ensures litigants receive formal adjudication and preserves the right to challenge procedural decisions in higher courts, reinforcing procedural fairness in energy disputes.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that only the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) holds statutory power under the Electricity Act, 2003 to fix or revise supervision charges for self-execution works. The Court quashed KPTCL’s unilateral fee revision and directed a refund of excess payments with 8% interest, reinforcing regulatory compliance over arbitrary executive action.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that electricity distributors cannot disconnect power for surcharge claims dating back more than two years if those charges were never reflected in regular bills. This protects consumers from retroactive demands based on outdated audits, reinforcing that limitation periods under the Electricity Act require active, transparent billing - not silent accumulation of dues.

The Supreme Court ruled that Indian Railways does not qualify as a 'deemed distribution licensee' under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and is thus liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge as a consumer under Section 42. The judgment rejects Railways' claims of sovereign immunity or internal infrastructure exemptions, setting a precedent for open access electricity consumers.

The Supreme Court ruled that depreciation recovery under electricity tariff regulations is capped by the approved operational period of the asset, even if its technical life extends beyond it. The judgment reinforces consumer protection under Section 61(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003, prioritizing regulatory limits over utility cost recovery demands, impacting tariff determinations for power distribution companies.

HP High Court rules that provisional electricity assessments under Section 126 must be preceded by physical inspection and disclosure of MRI data to the consumer, failing which the assessment violates natural justice and is void. This precedent mandates procedural fairness in utility enforcement across India, impacting all electricity boards and consumers facing unauthorized usage allegations.

The Jharkhand High Court nullified a ₹12.54 crore electricity theft assessment against Jharkhand Ispat because the distributor failed to conduct the mandatory inspection under Section 126 and imposed charges not authorized by the Supply Code. This ruling reinforces that statutory compliance is non-negotiable in quasi-judicial tariff assessments, affecting all industrial consumers subject to DVC and similar utility audits.

Rajasthan High Court rules that rights accrued under the Solar Policy 2019, including electricity duty exemptions, cannot be retrospectively revoked for projects already commissioned. The judgment reinforces the enforceability of policy incentives against arbitrary state amendments, impacting renewable energy investors and public-private partnerships.

Madras High Court affirms that electricity distribution boards retain civil jurisdiction to assess liability for electricity theft occurring before the 2007 amendment, even where Special Courts were later empowered. The ruling bars delayed challenges under res judicata and reinforces the Board's authority to recover losses independently of criminal proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that electricity utilities cannot impose Power-Intensive User (PIU) tariffs without proving the actual relocation of equipment. Consumer-provided gate passes and letters suffice as evidence where the utility fails to inspect or rebut, shifting the burden of proof onto the utility.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that consistent Maximum Demand readings from electronic meters constitute conclusive evidence for excess load billing, even if consumption patterns suggest otherwise. Industrial consumers cannot challenge tariff liabilities based on technical meter data validated under the Electricity Act.