Civil Procedure – Interlocutory Applications – Rent Deposit – Section 151 CPC – Plaintiff filed suit in 2017 for declaration of title and delivery of possession of plaint schedule properties – During pendency, filed I.A. Nos. 16 & 17 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC seeking direction to defendants to furnish tenant particulars and deposit rents collected from plaint schedule properties – Trial Court dismissed both applications – Held: Applications filed five years after institution of suit; prayer for deposit of rents goes beyond the relief sought in the suit; no illegality or perversity in order of dismissal [Paras 8–9].

Title Dispute – Contested Will – Determination at Trial – Respondents/defendants claimed ownership of suit schedule properties under a Will dated 21.01.2008 executed in their favour by late A. Rajamma out of love and affection for services rendered – Plaintiff contested the Will and claimed to be sole legal heir of late G. Subbaiah Chetty and late A. Rajamma – Trial Court held that status of defendants as tenants and alleged subletting must be determined at full-fledged trial – Held: Opinion of Trial Court cannot be found fault with given the definite rival stands in pleadings [Para 9].

Burden of Proof – Rent Collection – Absence of Evidence – Plaintiff alleged defendants collecting rents of Rs. 75,000/- per month from sub-tenants – No oral or documentary evidence adduced to substantiate the allegation – Held: In absence of valid proof no relief can be granted even assuming some justification in the claim [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Murder — Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC — Plea of Alibi — Accused No. 1 Acquitted — Accused No. 2 Conviction Confirmed — Accused No. 1 (Asim @ Munmun) convicted for assaulting the deceased with a farsi in a hair salon — Raised plea of alibi from inception asserting presence at Anand (200 km away) at the time of offence at Botad — Both Investigating Officers (PW-33 and PW-34) admitted recording statements of 13 independent witnesses from Anand and collecting CDR/location data confirming appellant's presence there, but suppressed same from charge-sheet — Pursuant to Supreme Court and High Court directions, additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. recorded — Held: Plea of alibi established on preponderance of probabilities — Prosecution failed to rebut — Accused No. 1 acquitted — Accused No. 2 (Jasminbhai) convicted for firing revolver at deceased — Role corroborated by medical evidence, FSL reports, ballistic expert's opinion and proved motive — Conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(a) Arms Act confirmed [Paras 21–23, 29–32].

Plea of Alibi — Section 11 Indian Evidence Act — Nature and Burden — Alibi is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act and not a general exception under the IPC — Taking a plea of alibi does not dilute the burden of prosecution to prove presence of accused at scene of crime beyond reasonable doubt — Prosecution must first discharge primary burden — Only thereafter does the Court examine the defence plea of alibi — When plea is raised, a heavy burden lies upon the accused to establish it by cogent evidence or material on record so as to completely exclude possibility of presence at place of occurrence — Standard of strict scrutiny applies — Where prosecution itself collects material in support of alibi but suppresses it, accused cannot be expected to lead defence evidence at his own peril [Paras 22–22.15].

Suppression of Material Evidence — Duty of Investigating Officer — Dereliction — Investigating Officers collected statements of 13 alibi witnesses from Anand (including police personnel, press reporter, businessmen and drivers) and CDR/location data of accused's mobile phone, all confirming his absence from Botad — These materials were deliberately not produced with the charge-sheet — Such suppression constitutes a serious dereliction of duty and raises grave doubt about the fairness of the investigation — This Court directed recording of additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. pursuant to Supreme Court directions in Crl. Appeal No. 184 of 2020 [Paras 9.1, 21, 22.12–22.13].

Duties of Stakeholders in Criminal Trial — Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor and Court — Fair Trial — Article 21 — A criminal trial is not a contest between parties but a quest for truth — The Investigating Officer must collect and produce all relevant material, including that which supports the defence — The Public Prosecutor/Special Public Prosecutor, as an officer of the Court, must place all material before the Court — The trial Court cannot remain a passive spectator or mute recording machine but must actively participate in the search for truth — Where prosecution is remiss, the Court must exercise its powers to elicit all necessary material — Failure of any stakeholder to discharge their duty may result in serious crime going unpunished or an innocent person being convicted — Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar referred to [Paras 25–28.4].

Ocular Evidence — Sole Eyewitness — Related and Interested Witness — Reliability — Prosecution case rests entirely on testimony of complainant PW-28 Khodabhai Jogarana, a close relative of the deceased and a chance witness — Evidence of such witness requires careful and strict scrutiny — Material contradictions and improvements in testimony noted — Blood-stained clothes of complainant never seized — Crucial witness Budhabhai @ Vashrambhai, who accompanied complainant and disclosed name of Accused No. 1, not examined — Non-examination of this material witness creates a major lacuna — However, role of Accused No. 2 (firing of revolver) found consistent with medical and forensic evidence and accepted to that extent [Paras 10–13.1, 20.1, 23.1–23.8].

Test Identification Parade — Reliability — TI Parade of Accused No. 1 held 7 days after arrest — Accused taken to various places without being kept in baparda during remand period — Possibility of prior exposure of accused to complainant cannot be ruled out — Description of dummies not mentioned in panchnama — Panchas not examined — TI Parade evidence not being substantive evidence, carries no weight in these circumstances — Identification of Accused No. 1 unsafe [Para 10.7].

FSL and Ballistic Evidence — Corroboration — Ballistic Expert's Report confirms bullet recovered from body of deceased was fired from revolver seized in case — Biology and Serology Reports confirm human blood of Group 'O' on farsi, matching blood group of deceased — No blood stains of either accused found on any article — FSL evidence corroborates ocular evidence only with respect to role of Accused No. 2 — Chain of custody of muddamal proved without break [Paras 18, 23.4–23.5].

Robbery — Section 397 IPC — Charge Not Proved — Prosecution failed to prove charge of robbery against Accused No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt — No recovery of alleged looted revolver or mobile phone — Trial Judge himself disbelieved allegation of looting — Conviction under Section 397 IPC set aside [Para 23.9].

Principle of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus — Applicability — Rule of Caution — Maxim is merely a rule of caution — Where witnesses are found unreliable on certain aspects such as exaggeration regarding involvement of other accused, Court must carefully scrutinize remaining evidence and may rely upon portions found credible and duly corroborated — Core prosecution case against Accused No. 2 stands on credible and corroborated evidence notwithstanding rejection of case against Accused No. 1 [Para 29.1].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2019 (Accused No. 1 — Asim @ Munmun) allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused No. 1 acquitted on proved plea of alibi — Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2019 (Accused No. 2 — Jasminbhai Kothari) dismissed — Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act confirmed — Conviction under Section 397 IPC set aside.

Trade Mark Infringement – House Mark vs. Trade Mark – Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – "No Distinction Between House Mark and Trade Mark Under the Act" – Plaintiff registered proprietor of device mark 'SUN' since 1983 and word marks 'SUN PHARMA'/'SUNPHARMA' since 2007, with user claim from 1978 and 1993 respectively, in Class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations – Defendant used house marks/trade names 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' on its pharmaceutical products from 2007 – Defendant contended that its marks were mere house marks and not trade marks, and that Sections 29(1), (2) and (4) did not apply – Held: The Trade Marks Act makes no distinction between a trade mark and a house mark; a mark qualifies as a trade mark the moment it is capable of distinguishing one person's goods from another's – Defendant's own witness admitted claiming monopoly over 'ABSUN PHARMA' and using it as a logo – Section 29(5) squarely attracted as the plaintiff's registered marks 'SUN'/'SUN PHARMA' are subsumed within the defendant's marks, with mere prefixing of alphabets 'AB' – Sections 29(6) and (7) also attracted as defendant affixed marks on packaging and exported goods thereunder – Issue No. 1 decided in favour of plaintiff [Paras 14–38].

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Preparations – Stricter Test Applied – "Mere Prefixing of 'AB' Cannot Distinguish the Marks" – Court applied the test of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection – Marks 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' found visually, phonetically and structurally close to 'SUN'/'SUN PHARMA', the registered marks being entirely subsumed in the defendant's marks – Held: Stricter approach warranted in cases involving medicinal and pharmaceutical products given the risk of confusion adversely affecting consumers/patients – Honest adoption held irrelevant once infringement is established – Defendant's failure to conduct any search of the trade marks register prior to adoption of its marks, despite admittedly knowing of the plaintiff since 1995, indicative of dishonest adoption [Paras 30–35].

Export of Goods – Section 56, Trade Marks Act, 1999 – "Applying a Mark in India to Goods for Export Constitutes Use Under the Act" – Defendant claimed no liability as all its products were exported to African countries and not sold in India – Held: Section 56 deems application of a trade mark in India to goods intended for export as use of the mark for all purposes under the Act, including infringement and passing off – Defence of export-only sales rejected [Paras 36–37].

Late-Stage Change of Trading Name – Rejected as Tactic – "Honest Men Do Not Attempt to Sail Near the Wind" – Defendant sought to tender an affidavit at final hearing claiming change of trading name from 'ABSUN PHARMA' to 'ABSUN REMEDIES' w.e.f. October 2025 – Affidavit not taken on record – Held: After completion of pleadings, evidence and arguments, a party cannot be permitted to file such an affidavit to defeat the trial; such attempt fortifies the finding of dishonest adoption [Para 38].

Passing Off – Goodwill – Proof in Commercial Suits – "Failure to Deny Documents in Commercial Suit Amounts to Admission" – Plaintiff relied on Chartered Accountant certificates of sales and promotional expenses to prove goodwill – Defendant challenged admissibility on ground that authors of certificates were not examined – Held: In commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 and Order XI Rule 4 of CPC require specific admission/denial of documents including their contents; defendant neither denied the certificates in the written statement nor cross-examined plaintiff's witness on them, nor filed a statement of admission and denial despite opportunity; all documents stood admitted as to existence and contents – Goodwill proved [Paras 39–42].

Passing Off – Misrepresentation and Damages – Decree for Rendition of Accounts Refused – Plaintiff proved misrepresentation through similarity of marks and overlap of goods – Specific damages of Rs. 10 lakhs not proved; plaintiff's witness stated figure was approximate and no supporting documents were produced – Held: Plaintiff made out case of passing off; however, no issue of rendition of accounts was framed and no specific evidence led in that regard, hence prayer for rendition of accounts declined – Issue No. 2 decided in favour of plaintiff [Paras 43–46].

"SUN" Not Common to Trade – Issue No. 5 – Burden on defendant to prove that the mark 'SUN' had become generic through substantial and extensive use by third parties – Defendant placed no evidence of sales figures or usage data of third parties on record; mere oral claim at final hearing insufficient – Issue decided against defendant [Paras 48–49].

Acquiescence – Issue No. 6 – Defendant's sole witness, when cross-examined, admitted there was no document showing plaintiff's awareness of the defendant prior to December 2012 and further stated he did not know the meaning of the term 'acquiescence' – Issue decided against defendant [Para 50].

Costs – First-Time Knowing Infringer – Partial Costs Awarded – Court applying the principle that a first-time knowing infringer may be awarded injunction with partial costs – Defendant's witness admitted awareness of plaintiff's company since 1995 – Plaintiff's marks in public domain since 1983 – Held: Defendant is a first-time knowing infringer; costs of Rs. 10 lakhs awarded to plaintiff [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Suit decreed – Defendant permanently restrained from using marks 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' and 'E-MIST' or any deceptively similar marks – Decree passed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) – Defendant directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to the plaintiff [Paras 54–55].

Preventive Detention – NDPS – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Live and Proximate Link – Writ petition challenging detention order dated 14.10.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of PIT-NDPS Act, confirmed for one year from 23.10.2025 — Petitioner convicted in 2020 under NDPS Act; later granted bail on appeal; again involved in NDPS offence in 2024 and released on bail solely on account of period of custody; sanha entries recorded in June–July 2025 for provoking villagers to engage in narcotics trade — Petitioner contended delay of 2½ months between initial report (31.07.2025) and detention order (14.10.2025) severed live and proximate link — Held: Initial communication dated 31.07.2025 was merely a report/information, not a proposal for detention; formal proposal forwarded to detaining authority on 27.09.2025, received on 03.10.2025; detention order passed within 11 days — No undue delay — Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–20, 45–46].

"Proposal for Detention Distinguished from Preliminary Report" – Communications prior to 27.09.2025 between SDPO Simaria, SP Chatra and DC Chatra constituted background/information reports leading up to the formal proposal — Formal proposal with supporting documents forwarded by DC Chatra to detaining authority on 27.09.2025, received 03.10.2025 — Detention order passed on 14.10.2025 i.e. within 11 days of receipt of proposal — Held: Delay, if any, is to be reckoned from date of receipt of proposal by detaining authority, not from date of preliminary police report — No undue delay established [Paras 13–20].

"Live and Proximate Link Not Severed — Habitual Offender" – Petitioner convicted in 2018 NDPS case; again implicated in 2024 NDPS case with recovery of 2.2 kg opium; sanha entries in June–July 2025 for actively recruiting villagers into narcotics trade — Detaining authority considered entire criminal history before passing order — Held: Satisfaction of detaining authority arrived at bearing in mind live and proximate link between past conduct and imperative need to detain; material not stale — Principle in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana applied [Paras 21–34].

"Grant of Bail No Bar to Preventive Detention" – Petitioner contended that enlargement on bail in pending NDPS cases precluded preventive detention — Held: Preventive detention is based on subjective satisfaction of detaining authority that ordinary processes of law are inadequate to curb habitually prejudicial activities — Grant of bail in criminal cases does not affect competence of detaining authority to pass detention order — Petitioner's repeated involvement in NDPS offences even after conviction and bail demonstrates that normal course of law is insufficient — Ratio of D.M. Nagaraja v. Government of Karnataka applied [Paras 35–44].

"Mismatch in Sanha Numbers — Not Fatal to Detention Order" – Two sanha entries bearing same number (Sanha No. 19 of 2025) but different dates noted — Held: Clerical mismatch in sanha numbers not a ground to interfere with detention order where undisputed fact of sanha entry recording petitioner's narcotic activities remains established [Para 31].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Detention order dated 14.10.2025 and its confirmation dated 19.12.2025 upheld — Pending interlocutory applications dismissed as not pressed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 376 IPC – Section 482 CrPC – Consensual Relationship – Revisional application filed for quashing of GR Case No. 923 of 2017 arising out of Electronic Complex PS Case No. 127 of 2017 – Petitioner charged under Section 376 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by a woman known to him through social media – Complainant voluntarily visited the petitioner at a hotel on two occasions – Refused medical examination – Stated in her Section 164 statement that she could not remember the incident – Hotel authorities had communicated facts improbabilising the allegations – Held: None of the ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged were prima facie brought on record; proceedings amount to abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed [Paras 6–11].

Evidentiary Infirmities – Delayed Complaint – Refusal of Medical Examination – Contradictory Section 164 Statement – Complainant lodged the FIR approximately two months after the alleged incident – Refused to undergo medical examination – Stated in her Section 164 statement that she could not remember the incident at the hotel – Complainant's own account showed voluntary accompaniment to the hotel room without any assertion of loss of consciousness – Realization of alleged rape only upon reaching home found to be prima facie an afterthought unsupported by the written complaint [Paras 7–8].

Charge Sheet – Mechanical Submission – Cognizance – Investigating agency submitted charge sheet without considering the delay in complaint, refusal of medical examination, contradictory Section 164 statement, and the hotel's letter dated 22/11/2017 improbabilising the allegations – Learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 23/8/2018 without considering these glaring infirmities – Held: Mechanical submission of charge sheet and uncritical cognizance thereof unsustainable on facts [Para 3].

Decision: Revision allowed – Proceedings in GR Case No. 923 of 2017 arising out of Electronic Complex PS Case No. 127 of 2017, along with order of cognizance dated 23/8/2018, quashed – All connected applications disposed of – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 11–14].

Custodial Violence – Compensation – Adverse Inference from Absence of CCTV Footage – Petitioner allegedly assaulted by police constables Nagendra and Utkarsh of P.S. Lasudiya, Indore, in the early hours of 29.12.2025, both at the spot and inside the police station for about one and a half hours – Photographs of injuries filed on record – Petitioner taken to an inner room of the police station not covered by CCTV cameras during 2:41 a.m. to 2:45 a.m., and sounds of beating audible in the footage – Statements of petitioner's friends corroborated the assault – State denied allegations and relied on FSL report showing no deleted files on petitioner's phone – Held: Non-availability of CCTV visuals of an incident occurring near and inside a police station is not natural and sufficient to draw an adverse inference against delinquent officers – Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded – CCTV footage directed to be preserved [Paras 11-13].

Body-Worn Cameras – Criminal Waste of Public Resources – Absence of SOP – Out of 442 body-worn cameras distributed to Indore Police Commissionerate, only two allotted to Lasudiya Police Station, and those used solely for traffic violations – No SOP framed for use and monitoring of body-worn cameras – Held: Such state of affairs is pathetic and amounts to a criminal waste of public resources – Complete ignorance or conscious disregard on the part of officers in adopting new technology noted [Para 14].

Police Accountability – Systemic Directions – CCTV Coverage and Body-Worn Cameras – Court's earlier concern in M.Cr.C. No. 34624/2024 dated 19.09.2024 regarding body cameras not acted upon – Held: State Government directed to ensure that accused or complainants shall not be taken to areas of police stations not covered by CCTV cameras – All police personnel in at least the top five crime-registering police stations out of the thirty-five-odd stations in Indore Police Commissionerate to be provided body-worn cameras within nine months – SOP to be prepared for wearing cameras while on duty – Necessary infrastructure to be provided to Indore Police Commissionerate – Compliance report to be submitted on next date of hearing [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to petitioner – CCTV footage and records directed to be preserved – State Government directed to implement systemic directions regarding CCTV coverage and body-worn cameras within nine months – Matter listed on 04.01.2027 for compliance – Copy of order directed to be sent to Principal Secretary (General Administration), Secretary (Home/Police), Director General of Police, and Commissioner of Indore Police.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 – Limitation – Suit for partition and declaration in respect of agricultural land (Survey No.52, 47 acres) claimed as ancestral joint family property – Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs sold the suit property by registered Sale Deed in 1944 – Property thereafter changed hands several times; respondents acquired it by three registered Sale Deeds of 1980 and executed Release Deeds in 2020 – Plaintiffs challenged only the 1980 Sale Deeds and 2020 Release Deeds alleging forgery; cause of action averred to have arisen in December 2021 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) CPC – High Court affirms: registered Sale Deed of 1944 by predecessor constitutes constructive notice; no challenge made to the 1944 Sale Deed; suit filed 42 years after 1980 Sale Deeds is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4, 12, 24-26].

"Sham Litigation Must Be Terminated at Threshold" – Order VII Rule 11 – Scope and Mandatory Nature – Power under Order VII Rule 11 is a special and drastic remedy to summarily dismiss suits at the threshold without trial – The provision is mandatory: if plaint does not disclose cause of action or suit is barred by limitation, the Court has no option but to reject – Test is whether averments in the plaint, taken in entirety, would result in a decree – Clever drafting to create an illusory cause of action does not save a time-barred suit – Plaintiff's deliberate omission of material dates to conceal the bar of limitation invites rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) [Paras 21-22].

Allegation of Fraud – Vague Pleading Insufficient – Fraud alleged in plaint was completely vague and unspecified, without any particulars of fraudulent conduct of respondents – Appellants could not feign ignorance of the 1944 Sale Deed since it was referenced in Schedule E of the Release Deeds annexed to the plaint itself – Challenge to subsequent Sale Deeds not maintainable without challenging the root title deed of 1944 [Paras 19, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Rejection of plaint by Trial Court upheld – Costs payable to Respondents 6 and 7 reduced to Rs.10,000/-, to be paid within one week – All pending applications closed [Paras 26-27.1].

Customs Law – Misdeclaration – Penalty under Section 114AA – Sections 111(d), 111(m), 112(a), 114AA, 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Importer mis-declared description, country of origin, value and seating capacity (8 to 10 seats) of an imported Cadillac Escalade SUV to avail duty concession under Notification No.12/2012 – DRI investigation revealed fabricated documents including a false ADR Approval letter – Vehicle seized; partner of importer admitted the conversion – Adjudicating authority ordered confiscation, imposed penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA, and appropriated duty paid – Appellate authority upheld – CESTAT partly allowed importer's appeal by setting aside the Section 114AA penalty and duty appropriation – High Court reverses CESTAT: Held, CESTAT erred in misreading the show cause notice; the SCN squarely alleged intentional use of false documents; re-export on payment of redemption fine does not absolve penal consequences; Substantial Questions of Law answered in favour of Department [Paras 2-4, 8-9, 24-25].

"Re-export Does Not Absolve Penalty" – Independent Nature of Customs Penalties – The option to redeem confiscated goods and re-export under Section 125 operates independently of the liability to pay penalty under Sections 114AA and 112(a) – Payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and permission for re-export are separate and independent actions from levy of penalty for misdeclaration – The importer, having opted to redeem and re-export, cannot escape the penal consequences for furnishing false documents – Held: One action does not exclude the other; vice-versa is equally impermissible [Paras 19-20, 24].

Section 114AA – Use of False Documents – Broad Scope – Section 114AA penalises any person who knowingly or intentionally makes, signs, uses, or causes to be made any false or incorrect declaration, statement or document – CESTAT erred in holding that penalty under Section 114AA requires the importer to have themselves caused the falsification – When fabricated documents emanate from the custody of the importer and the SCN attributes intentional use of false materials, the burden shifts to the importer to establish innocence – Absence of such discharge justifies penalty [Paras 18, 23-24].

Duty Liability After Redemption – Section 125(2) – Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 125, the owner of goods, upon exercising the option to pay fine and redeem confiscated goods, remains liable to pay customs duty and other charges in addition to the redemption fine – Distinguished from M/s Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024 INSC 547), where the factual matrix differed [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – Substantial Questions of Law answered in favour of the Department – CESTAT order setting aside Section 114AA penalty and duty appropriation set aside – No costs [Para 25].

Electricity Law – Renewable Power Purchase Obligation – Captive Power Plants – Vires of APERC RPO Regulations 2017 and 2022 – Petitioner operating an 80 MW Captive Power Plant synchronized on 03.02.2013 at Vizianagaram – APERC issued show-cause notice for non-compliance of RPPO for 2012-13 to 2018-19 and determined a liability of Rs.16,24,90,400/- – Petitioner contended that RPO liability should be capped at 5% as per Ministry of Power clarification dated 01.10.2019 applicable to CPPs commissioned before 01.04.2016 – APERC held Ministry clarifications had no binding force on the Commission – Held: Challenge to 2017 Regulations belated as they are no longer in force and have worked themselves out – Challenge to 2022 Regulations sustainable to the extent APERC was obliged to consider the clarification dated 01.10.2019 as a material factor before framing the said Regulations [Paras 37, 53, 54].

Statutory Interpretation – "Shall be Guided" – Sections 61 and 86(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – National Tariff Policy – Advisory Role of Central Government – The phrase "shall be guided" as occurring in Sections 61 and 86(4) does not render the National Tariff Policy or Ministry of Power directives bindingly mandatory on the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions – The framing of RPPO Regulations falls exclusively within the domain of the Commission, which however must treat the National Tariff Policy and Ministry directives issued thereunder as material considerations – Role of Central and State Governments is advisory only – Regulatory Commissions possess full autonomy in fixing RPPO – Relied upon: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Tata Power Co. Ltd. Transmission v. MERC & Ors. [Paras 46, 49, 50].

Ministry of Power Clarifications – Capping of RPO for CPPs – Clarification dated 01.02.2019 pegged RPO of CPP at the level applicable in the year of commissioning – Clarification dated 01.10.2019 further specified that for CPPs commissioned before 01.04.2016, RPO be fixed at the level mandated for FY 2015-16 – Held: These clarifications, while not binding, constitute material considerations that APERC was obliged to consider before framing the 2022 Regulations – APERC failed to demonstrate that such consideration was undertaken [Paras 25–27, 51–54].

Direction to APERC – APERC directed to consider the clarification dated 01.10.2019 and decide whether any amendment is necessary to the 2022 Regulations – If guidance accepted, necessary amendment to be incorporated and appropriate relief extended to petitioner – No coercive action for recovery of any amount beyond the obligation as fixed by the clarification dated 01.10.2019 for the period it remained in force, pending such consideration – Petitioner obligated to comply with 2022 Regulations if APERC decides not to amend them for valid reasons – Petitioner's liability under 2017 Regulations to be satisfied in full [Para 55, 56].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Challenge to APERC RPO Regulations 2017 rejected as belated – APERC directed to consider the 01.10.2019 clarification in relation to the 2022 Regulations and decide on amendment – Interim protection against coercive recovery granted pending such consideration – No costs.