CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Overrules High Court Mandate on Power Purchase on High Rates, Upholds Consumer Interest in Electricity Contracts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a noteable judgment, the Supreme Court of India has overruled a previous High Court mandate that directed state instrumentalities to purchase electricity from specific bidders, irrespective of the market alignment of their quoted rates. The apex court's decision reinforces the primacy of consumer interests and public welfare in commercial transactions involving state entities.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, revolved around the purchase of electricity by state distributors from private generators. The High Court had earlier mandated the purchase of power from the respondent, MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, which the Supreme Court found was not in alignment with prevailing market prices.

Justice Gavai, in his observation, emphasized the critical balance between consumer interest and generator benefits, stating, "It will not be permissible to take a lopsided view only to protect the interest of the generators ignoring the consumers’ interest and public interest." This statement underlines the judgment's focus on safeguarding consumer interests against potentially inflated electricity costs.

The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the importance of a fair and transparent bidding process in determining power purchase agreements. The judgment noted that state entities, while having the autonomy to choose their commercial transactions, must adhere to the norms and procedures they have established and cannot deviate arbitrarily. The apex court clarified that judicial intervention is warranted only if the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or malafide intent.

The judgment is seen as a significant move in ensuring that power procurement by state entities is conducted in a manner that is both economically viable and in the best interest of consumers. It reiterates the judiciary's role in upholding the principles of fairness and reasonableness in state commercial activities, particularly in sectors as vital as power distribution.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2024

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. VS MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED  & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News