UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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