The Apex Court on 21.01.2019, in RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA   AND ORS.,[1] disposed of the appeal that had been filed before the High Court Judicature at Bombay, for questioning the validity pertaining to a tariff regulation that was framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) wherein the appellant’s plea pertains to discrimination lying in a statutory regulation which determines the Station Heat Rate.

FACTS:

The Electricity Regulatory Commissions that had been constituted under Section 82 had been given the power for framing regulations under Section 181, as well as the terms and conditions to determine determination the tariff specified under Section 611. The MERC had framed the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 20052 for tenure of five years, till the financial year of 2010-11.

An extension of the regulations had been made for another one year till the financial year of 2011-12. An order was passed by upon a petition being filed by the appellant to defer the implementation of the MYT regulations. A petition approving the business plan was submitted by the appellant wherein a request was made for relaxing the norm and bringing it at pace with the normative SHR. An order was passed by MERC upon the MYT Business Plan for  the RInfra-G  as a consideration for the norms for SHR based upon the MYT regulations. An appeal was made by against the order before the before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

A writ petition was instituted in the Bombay High Court to challenge the Regulation specifying a distinct SHR while being compared to other generating stations in State of Maharashtra. The pendency of the appeal had   before the Tribunal against the MERC’s order which did not allow the prayer for the relaxation of norms.

 The writ petition was opposed by the MERC. The appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal followed by the dismissal by the High Court and imposing upon Rs 1 lakh upon the appellant.

Hence the aforesaid appeal had been made before the Supreme Court of INDIA.

ISSUE: Was the High Court had committed an abuse of the process while concluding the appeal pending before the APTEL, under Article 226?

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

The Apex Court  while disposing of the appeal held that the power of framing regulations is legislative in nature and that the  statutory procedure had fully been complied upon by the  MERC for determining   the tariffs .As a result of  which the case fails to constitute under the category of unreasonableness/arbitrariness from the part of the High Court.