Solar power developers have had their tariff rate of ₹8.40 per unit reinstated following the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) decision. The ruling supports APTEL’s earlier order and underscores the court’s endorsement of the original tariff for these developers. Additionally, the Court has supported APTEL’s decision to extend the scheduled commissioning date for a solar power project in Karnataka under the force majeure clause.
This extension was granted due to unforeseen circumstances impacting the project’s commercial operation timeline. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the importance of allowing constitutional courts to exercise restraint when reviewing decisions made by specialized tribunals, particularly in matters that involve technical expertise and sector-specific knowledge.
According to the bench composed of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, this approach is crucial for maintaining the independence and effectiveness of statutory regulators and tribunals. It allows these bodies to develop and apply sector-specific regulations in a manner that is both principled and consistent.
The ruling underlined the necessity of giving specialized tribunals the freedom to handle complex technical and sectoral issues without excessive interference from constitutional courts. The Supreme Court’s decision came in response to an appeal against a previous order by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) that had reduced the tariff rate initially set for solar power projects.
The top court found that KERC’s earlier decision to lower the tariff was incorrect. By overturning KERC’s order, the Supreme Court validated APTEL’s choice to restore the original tariff rate. This ruling means that BESCO, a power distribution company, is now obligated to compensate the solar power developers by paying them the difference between the reduced tariff and the original tariff rate, along with any applicable late payment surcharge.
The judgment reinforces the principle that specialized tribunals like APTEL are best equipped to handle issues related to their specific fields of expertise. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of APTEL’s decision highlights the judiciary’s recognition of the need to respect and uphold the decisions of regulatory bodies that have the technical and sectoral insight necessary to address complex issues effectively.
This approach not only facilitates the growth and refinement of laws tailored to specific sectors but also guarantees that such laws are implemented with consistency and fairness. By respecting the expertise of specialized tribunals, this method ensures that regulations evolve effectively and are applied equitably across the sector, promoting balanced and just outcomes.
