SC upholds MERC contract with Adani; Tata Power’s appeal was rejected | Daily News Byte

The Supreme Court in the process rejected Tata Power’s plea challenging this contract.

Aptel’s order of February 18, 2022 adopted MERC’s decision to award the transmission license on a nomination basis to Adani Electricity in March 2021.

In April, Tata Power approached the Supreme Court challenging the Aptel order upholding the MERC decision.

MERC has in March 2021 granted transmission license to Adani for setting up 1,000 MW high voltage direct current (voltage source convertor based) connection between 400 kV Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSETCL) Kudus and 220 kV AEML Aarey EHV Station.

Following this, Tata Power moved Aptel on the basis that the granting of licenses was not preceded by a competitive bidding process based on tariffs and therefore, contrary to public interest and statutory orders, according to the 93-page order of the court. .

The Electricity Act provides sufficient flexibility in managing the transmission system within the state, while the appropriate state commission has the power to determine and control tariffs, the bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held.

“The Electricity Act of 2003 seeks to alienate state governments from the determination and regulation of tariffs, placing such powers entirely within the purview of the appropriate commission. The Act, read with the Maharashtra government’s resolution dated January 4, 2019 does not stipulate that auction is the only route to decide the tariff. This case has highlighted the specific nature of the state’s electricity transmission. MSETCL’s slipper has wasted time,” the Supreme Court said.

“The regulation must be consistent with the purpose of the Electricity Law of 2003, which is to increase private sector investment in The electricity management sector to create a sustainable and effective electricity rate setting system, has achieved results. Such benefits. to the final consumer.”

Aptel in February 022 held that MERC’s decision to choose a controlled tax route cannot be called incorrect, distorted or inappropriate.