top of page
इस भाषा में अभी तक कोई पोस्ट प्रकाशित नहीं हुई
पोस्ट प्रकाशित होने के बाद, आप उन्हें यहाँ देख सकेंगे।

Summary and Analysis The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors. (2025 INSC 857)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Civil Appeal No. 12883 of 2024
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (Appellants) vs. JSW Hydro Energy Limited & Ors. (Respondents)
Decided on: July 16, 2025
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Core Issue: Whether contractual obligations to supply free power override electricity tariff regulations.

2. Relevant Laws & Sections

The judgment interprets:

  • Electricity Act, 2003:
    Section 61:
     Tariff regulations guided by commercial principles, consumer interests, and cost recovery.
    Section 79: Functions of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).
    Section 178: CERC’s power to frame regulations.

  • CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019:
    Regulation 55, Note 3:
     Caps "Free Energy for Home State" (FEHS) at 13% or actual, whichever is less for tariff calculation.

  • Contract Law:
    Validity of the Implementation Agreement (1999) requiring 18% free power to Himachal Pradesh.

3. Basic Case Details

Background

  • 1993/1999: Himachal Pradesh (HP) allotted the Karcham Wangtoo Hydroelectric Project (1,045 MW) to JSW’s predecessor via an Implementation Agreement.

  • Contractual Obligation: JSW agreed to supply 12% free power for the first 12 years (2011–2023) and 18% thereafter (2023–2051) as "royalty" for resource use.

  • 2019: CERC Regulations capped FEHS at 13% for tariff calculations. JSW sought to limit its free power supply to 13%, arguing the regulations override the contract.

  • High Court Ruling (2024): Directed HP to align the contract with CERC’s 13% cap. HP appealed to the Supreme Court.

Parties’ Arguments

  • HP:
    The 18% obligation is contractual consideration, not regulated by CERC.
    CERC’s cap applies only to tariff computation, not actual supply.

  • JSW:
    CERC regulations override "inconsistent" contracts under the PTC India Ltd. precedent.
    Supplying 18% free power reduces its Return on Equity (RoE), harming financial viability.

  • CERC:
    Regulations govern tariff fixation only; actual free power supply is a contractual matter.

4. Judgment Explanation

Key Findings

  1. CERC Regulations Do Not Prohibit >13% Free Power
    Regulation 55, Note 3
     caps FEHS at 13% for tariff calculations only (e.g., billing beneficiaries).
    It does not restrict generating companies from supplying more free power under contracts.
    Example: If JSW supplies 18% free power, only 13% is factored into tariffs; the extra 5% cost is borne by JSW.

  2. Implementation Agreement Remains Valid
    The 18% free power is legally enforceable as:
    Consideration for HP’s resources (land, water, permits).
    binding contract unaffected by tariff regulations.
    Precedent: Contracts inconsistent with regulations are overridden only where regulations expressly apply (PTC India Ltd. distinguished).

  3. High Court Erred in Entertaining Writ Petition
    Specialized Regulators (CERC/APTEL)
     must decide tariff-related disputes, not constitutional courts.
    JSW should have:
    Challenged the CERC’s 2022 tariff order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
    Sought contractual remedies (arbitration) instead of a writ petition.
    Conduct of JSW: It took contradictory positions—first seeking CERC’s relaxation of the cap, then filing a writ petition.

  4. State’s Status as "Deemed Licensee" Irrelevant
    Whether HP is a "deemed licensee" under the Electricity Act need not be decided, as the free power obligation arises from contract, not tariff regulation.

Final Ruling

  • Allowed HP’s appeal; set aside High Court’s order.

  • JSW must supply 18% free power per the Implementation Agreement.

  • No costs awarded.

5. Simplified Takeaway

  • For Companies: Tariff regulations limit cost recovery from beneficiaries, but contracts with states for higher free power remain valid.

  • For Governments: Resource-use contracts (e.g., hydropower) can legally mandate free power beyond regulatory caps.

  • Legal Strategy: Disputes involving technical regulations must first go to expert bodies (CERC/APTEL), not courts.

Impact: Ensures states receive contracted royalties for resources, balancing investor commitments and public interest.

Blog Posts

इस भाषा में अभी तक कोई पोस्ट प्रकाशित नहीं हुई
पोस्ट प्रकाशित होने के बाद, आप उन्हें यहाँ देख सकेंगे।
  • Picture2
  • Telegram
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 Lawcurb.in

bottom of page