Holding

The State Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot exercise its inherent powers under Regulations 80‑82 to extend the control period of a tariff order, as such power would substantively alter the PPA and is not authorized by the Electricity Act, 2003.

Summary

The appellant Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Solar Semiconductor Power Co. for a solar project, which stipulated a specific tariff and a control period ending on 28‑Jan‑2012. The respondent sought an extension of this control period, arguing that the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) could use its inherent powers under Regulations 80‑82 of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004 to do so. The Commission initially refused, but the Appellate Tribunal held that the Commission could extend the period, a view later remanded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly sections 61, 62, 64, 86, 92, 94 and 181, and held that the Commission's inherent powers are limited to procedural matters and cannot be used to alter substantive contractual terms of a PPA. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commission lacks authority to extend the control period, as doing so would effectively amend the tariff order and the PPA. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower orders.

Issues considered

Whether the State Electricity Regulatory Commission can exercise its inherent powers under Regulations 80‑82 to extend the control period of a tariff order.
Whether such an extension would amount to a substantive alteration of the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement.
Whether the Electricity Act, 2003 (sections 181, 62, 64, 86, 94) permits the Commission to vary the tariff or control period beyond the statutory procedure.
Whether Regulation 85 authorises extension of the control period, which is not a time prescribed by the Regulations or an order for doing any act.
The scope and limitation of the Commission’s inherent powers vis‑à‑vis the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
Electricity Act, 2003s. 181, s. 61, s. 62, s. 64, s. 86(1)(a), s. 86(1)(b), s. 86(1)(e), s. 92, s. 94
General Clauses Act, 1898s. 14, s. 21
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004s. 80, s. 81, s. 82, s. 85

Subjects

electricity tariffinherent powersregulatory commissionPower Purchase Agreementcontrol periodconsumer interestRegulation 80‑82extension of timestatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2017) 14 S.C.R.115

GUJARAT URJA VII<AS NIGAM LIMITED A
v.
SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR POWER COMPANY (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6399 of2016) B
OCTOBER 25, 2017
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)
. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of
Business) Regulations, 2004:
c
Regulations 80 to 82 ..- Whether the State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, in exercise of its inherent powers, could
have extended the control period for the respondent Company -
Held: The Commission does not have the power to extend the control
period in exercise of its inherent powers provided under Reg. 80 to
82, to the advantage of one party and to disadvantage of the other - D
Electricity Act, 2003 - s. 181.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Per Kurian Joseph, J.:
E
1. An amendment to tariff by the Regulatory Commission
is permitted under Section 62(4) read with Section 64(6) of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Section 86(l)(a) clothes the Commission
with the power to determine the tariff and under Section 86(1)(b),
it is for the Commission to regulate the price at which electricity
is to be procured from the generating companies. Section 86 (l)(e) F
deals with. promoting co-generation and generation of electricity
from renewable sources of energy. Therefore, there cannot be
any quarrel with regard to the power conferred on the Commission
with regard to fixation of tariff for the electricity procured from
the generating companies or amendment thereof in the given G
circumstances. [Para 29] [145-C-D]
2. Part X of the Act from Sections 76 to 109 deals with
"Regulatory Commissions" providing for th.eir constitution,
powers and functions. Section 92 read with Section 94 provides
for the proceedings and power of the Commission while exercising H
115
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A its functions and powers. Under Section 92, the proceedings of
the Commission are to be governed by what is specified in the
appropriate Regulation with regard to the transaction of business
at its meetings. It is that Regulation which is referred to under
Section 181 (zl) "rules of procedure for transaction of business
B under sub-section (1) of Section .92". Under Section 181(zp) other
matters also can be specified. Section 2(62) defines "specified"
as "specified by regulations made by the Appropriate Commission
or the Authority, as the case may be, under this Act". [Para 30)
1145-·E-F)
3. Section 94 provides that the Appropriate Commission
C shall be vested with certain powers as are vested in a civil court,
only in six specified areas. Under Section 94(1)(g), the
Commission has the powers of a civil court in respect of "any
other matter which may be prescribed". Under Section 2(52)
"prescribed means prescribed by rules made by the Appropriate
D Government under this Act". [Para 31) [145-G-H)
4. Regulations 80 to 82 of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 are
instances of such powers specified by the Commission.
Regulation 80 has provided for the inherent power of the
E Commission to the extent of making such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Commission. Such inherent powers are to be
exercised notwithstanding only the restrictions on the
Commission under the Conduct of Business Regulations, meaning
thereby that there cannot be any restrictions in the Conduct of
F Business Regulations on exercise of inherent powers by the
Commission. But the specified inherent powers are not as
pervasive a power as available to a court under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 32) [146-A-C)
5. However, the Commission is enjoined with powers to
G issue appropriate orders in the interest of justice and for
preventing abuse of process of the Commission, to the extent
not otherwise provided for under the Act or Rules. In other words,
the inherent power of the Commission is available to it for
exercise only in those areas where the Act or Rules are silent.
H [Para 32) [146-D-E)
_GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 117
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD.

6. Under Regulation 81, the Commission is competent to A
adopt a procedure which is at variance with any of the other
provisions of the Regulations in case the Commission is of the
__ view that such an exercise is warranted in view of the special
circumstances and such special circumstances are to be recorded
in writing. However, it is specifically provided under Section 181 B
that there cannot be a Regulation which is not in conformity with
the provisions of the Act or Rules~ [Para 33) [146-E-F)
7. Under Regulation 82, the Commission has powers to
deal with any matter or exercise any power under the Act for
which no Regulations are framed meaning thereby where
something is expressly provided in the Act, the Commission has C
to deal with it only in accordance with the manner prescribed in
the Act. The only leeway available to the Commission is only
when the Regulations on proceedings are silent on a specific issue.
There cannot be any exercise of the inherent power for dealing
with any matter which is otherwise specifically provided under D
the Act. The exercise of power which .has the effect of amending
the PPA by varying the tariff can only be done as per statutory
provisions and not under the inherent power referred to in
Regulations 80 to 82. [Para 34] (146-G-H; 147-A-B)
8. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with -E
matters of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of
consumers is at stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective,
can be clearly ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Act
mentions "protecting interest of consumers" and Section 6l(d)
requires that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded
when the Appropriate Commission specifies the terms and F
conditions for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with
Section 62, determination of tariff is to be made only after
considering all suggestions and objections received from the
public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute _
with notice to the public can be amended only by following the- G
same procedure. Therefore, the approach of this Court ought to
be cautious and guarded when the decision has its bearing on the
consumers. [Para 35) [147-C-D]
9. Regulation 85 provides for extension of time. The same
is available only in two specified situations - (i) for extension of H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A time prescribed by the Regulations and (ii) extension of time
prescribed by the Commission in its order for doing any act. The
control period is not something prescribed by the Commission
under the Conduct of Business Regulations. The control period
is also not an order by the Commission for doing any act.
B Commissioning of a project is the act to be performed in terms of
the obligation under the PPA and that is between the producer
and the purchaser, viz., respondent No.1 and appellant. Hence,
the Commission cannot extend the time stipulated under the PPA
for doing any act contemplated under the agreement in exercise
of its powers under Regulation 85. Therefore, there cannot be
C extension of. the control period under the inherent powers of the
Commission. [Para 36) (147-E-G)
10. The Commission being a creature of statute cannot
assume to itself any powers which are not otherwise conferred
on it. Under the guise of exercising its inherent power, the
D Commission cannot take recourse to exercise of a power,
procedure for which is otherwise specifically provided under the
Act. [Para 37) (147-G-H; 148-A)
11. However, Respondent No. 1 can take recourse to the
liberty available to them for re-determining of tariff if otherwise
E permissible under law and in which case it will be open to the
parties to take all available contentions before the Commission.
[Para 38) [148-B-C]
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. EMCO Limited
and Anr. (2016) 11 SCC 182 : [2016) 1 SCR 857;
F Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Tarini
Infrastructure Limited and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 743
: (2016) 5 SCR 990 - relied on. ·
Per R. Banumathi,.J. (Concurring)
1. It is not. correct that the question of law on the
G Commission's inherent jurisdiction to extend the control period
has been settled inter-se the parties in the earlier round of
litigation. [Para 13) [154-B-C)
2. Under Regulations 80 to 82, the inherent powers of the
State Commission are saved. Under Regulation 80, which is akin
H
. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 119
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD.

to Section 151 CPC, the power of the State Commission is only A
intended to regulate the conduct of the Commission, that is, to
regulate its own procedure. That power cannot travel beyond its
own procedure so as to alter the terms and conditions of the PPA
entered into between the parties to grant substantive relief to
. the first respondent by extending the control period of Tariff Order
(2010). beyond 28.0t.2012. [Para 141 [154-C-DJ B
3. The inherent power is not a provision of law to grant
any substantive relief. But it is only a procedural provision to
make orders to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse
of process of the Court. It cannot be used to create or recognize C
· substantive rights of the parties. [Para 16] [154-G]
4. In the present case, rights and obligations of the parties
flow from the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA). PPA is a contract entered between the
appellant and the first respondent with clear understanding of
the terms of the contract. A contract, being a creation of both the D
parties, is to be interpreted by having due regard to the actual
· terms settled between the parties. The PPA is a complex fiscal
decision consciously taken by the parties. In the contract
involving rights Qf the appellant and ultimately the rights of the
consumers to whom the electricity is supplied, Commission E
cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction to substantially alter the
terms of the contract between the parties so as to prejudice the
interest of the appellant and ultimately the consumers. [Para 17]
(156-D-F]
5. It may be that the tariff rate as per Tariff Order (2010) F
as determined by the Committee has been incorporated in clause
5.2 of the PPA. But that does not in any manner confer power
upon the State Commission to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
to extend the control period to the advantage of the project
proponent-first respondent and to the disadvantage of the
appellant who are governed by the terms and conditions of the G
contract. It is not within the powers of the Commission to exercise
its inherent jurisdiction to extend the control period to the
advantage of any party and to the disadvantage of the other would
amount to varying the terms of the contract b.etween the parties.
(Para 18] 156-G-H; 157-A]
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 6. The State Commission has determined tariff for solar
power producers vide order dated 29.01.2010 and tariff for next
control period vide order dated 27.0l.20I2. The order dated
29.01.2010 is applicable for projects commissioned from
29.01.2010 to 28.0l.20I2 and the order dated 27.0l.20I2 is
applicable for projects commissioned from 29.0l.20I2 to
B 31.03.2015. The tariff is determined by the State Commission
under Section 62. The choice of entering into contract/PPA based
on such tariff is with the Power Producer and the Distribution
Licensee. The State Commission in exercise of its power under
Section 62 of the Act, may conceivably re-determine the tariff, it
C cannot force either the generating company or the licensee to
enter into a contract based on such tariff nor can it vary the terms
of the contract invoking inherent jurisdiction.[Para 21J[I58-A-C]
7. In exercise of its statutory power, under Section 62 of
the Electricity Act, the Commission has fixed the tariff rate. The
D word 'tariff' has not been defined in the Act. Tariff means a
schedule of standard/prices or charges provided to the category
or categories for procurement by licensee from generating
company, wholesale or bulk or retail/various categories of
consumers. After taking into consideration the factors in Section
E 6I(I)(a) to (i), the State Commission determined the tariff rate
for various categories including Solar Power PV project and the
same is applied uniformly throughout the State. When the said
tariffrate as determined by the Tariff Order (2010) is incorporated
in the PPA between the parties, it is a matter of contract between
the parties. Respondent No.I is bound by the terms and conditions
F of PPA entered into between respondent No.I and the appellant
by mutual consent and that the State Commission was not right
in exercising its inherent jurisdiction by extending the first
control period beyond its due date and thereby substituting its
view in the PPA, which is essentially a matter of contract between
the parties. [Para 25) [I60-D-F]
G
8. Under Section 94(I)(t), the Commission has the power
to review its own decision. The power of review under Section
94(I)(t) is akin to that under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. At the
instance. of affected parties or the generating companies or the
Commission on its own motion may review its own decision only
H if such order was made under: (i) mistake or error of fact apparent
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 121
- SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD.

on the face of the record; (ii) discovery of new and important A
matter which was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time
when the order was made; or (iii) any other sufficient reason to
meet the ends of justice. [Para 26] [160-G-H; 161-A]
9. Contention of the appellant is that grounds were made
out by the first respondent for review of first Tariff Order which B
was applicable till 28.01.2012 is also left open. [Para 26) [161-B]
10. Liberty is granted to the appellant to urge the
contentions on merits, before the Commission and the
Commission to consider the same on its own merits. [Para 27)
[162-B-C] C
11. Thus. when the 1st respondent commissioned its project -
beyond 13.03.2012, Commission cannot exercise its inherent
jurisdiction and vary the terms to extend the control period of
Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010 in so far as the 1st respondent of
the contract-Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the D
appellant and the first respondent. The earlier order passed by
this Court in first round of litigation. has not conclusively decided
the substantial question of law inter-se the parties"that is exercise
of inherent jurisdiction by the Commission to vary the terms of
PPA by extending the control period beyond the stipulated time.
[Para 28) [162-C-E) E
Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Anr. (2010) 8 SCC
1 : [2010) 7 SCR 424; Ram Prakash Agarwal and Am:
v. Gopi Krishan (dead through LRs.) and Ors. (2013)
11 SCC 296 : [2013] 6 SCR 127; Gujarat Urja Vikas
Nigam Limited v. EMCO Limited and Am: (2016) 11 SCC F -
182 : [2016] 1 SCR 857; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited v. Tarini Infrastructure Limited and Ors. (2016)
8 sec 743 : [2016] 5 SCR 990 - relied on.
S. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Am:
(1993) 4 Suppl. sec 595 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 - G
referred to.
Case Law Reference
In the Judgment of Kurian Joseph, J:
[2016] 1 SCR 857 relied on Para 25
[2016) S SCR 990 relied on Para 26 H
. 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A In the Jud2ment of R. Banumathi, J:
[2010) 7 SCR 424 relied on Para 16
[2013) 6 SCR 127 relied on Para 16
· [2016) 1 SCR 857 relied on Para23
B (2016) 5 SCR 990 referred to Para24
[1993) 2 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para26
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6399
of2016.
C From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2016 of the Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 170of2014.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Anand Ganesan, Ms. Ranjeeta Ramachandran
(for Ms. Hemantika Wahi), Advs. for the Appellant.
Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay
D Khan, Ms. Filza Moonis, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
KURIAN, J. I. The principal question which arises in this case
E is whether the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the
Commission), in exercise of its inherent powers, could have extended
the control period for the I" respondent Company (Respondent no. I).
The control period is the period during which a particular tariff order
operates.
F 2. In order to address the issue, certain provisions of the Electricity
Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are required to be
noticed. Part VII of the Act deals with tariff. Sections 61, 62 and 64 of
the Act are of particular relevance. :-
"61. Tariff regulations.-The Appropriate Commission shall,
subject to the provisions of this Act, specify the terms and
G
conditions for the determination of tariff, and in doing so, shall be
guided by the following, namely:-
(a) the principles and methodologies specified by the Central
Commission for determination of the tariff applicable to
generating companies and transmission licensees;
H
GUJARAT URJA VIK.AS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 123
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

(b) the generation, transmission, distribution and su1mly of A
electricitr are conducted on commercial Qrinci11les;
(c) the factors which would encourage competition, efficiency,
economical use of the resources, good perform~nce and
optimum investments;
(d) safegyarding of consumers' interest and at the same time, .. B
recovei:y of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;
(e) the principles rewarding efficiency in performance;
(f) multi-year tariff principles;
(g) that the tariffprogressively reflects the cost of supply of c
electricity and also reduces cross-subsidies in the manner
specified by the Appropriate Commission;
(h) the Qromotion of co-generation and generation of electricij:y
from renewable .sources of energy;
D
(i) the National Electricity Policy and tariff policy:
Provided that the terms and conditions for determination of
tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 ofl 948),
the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of
1998) and the enactments specified in the Schedule as they
E
stood immediately before the appointed date, shall continue
to apply for a period of one year cir until the terms and
conditions for tariff are specified under this section,
whichever is earlier.
62. Determination of tanff.-(1) The Appropriate Commission·
shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of F
this Act for -
(a) supply of dectricij:y by a generating company to a'c!istribution
licensee:
Provided that the Appropriate Commission may, in case of G
shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and
maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity
in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a
generating company and a licensee or between licensees,
for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable
prices of electricity; H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A (b) transmission of electricity;
(c) wheeling of electricity;
(d) retail sale of electricity:
Provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same
B area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate
Commission may, for promoting competition among distribution
licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of
electricity.
(2) The Appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a
c generating company to furnish separate details, as may be
specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution
for determination of tariff.
(3) The Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining
the tariff under this Act, show undue preference to any consumer
of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer's
D
load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity
during any specified period or the time at which the supply is
required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of
supply and the purpose for which the supply is required.
(4) No tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended,
E
more frequently than once in any financial year, except in respect
of any changes expressly permitted under the terms of any fuel
surcharge formula as may be specified.
(5) The Commission may require a licensee or a generating
company to comply with such procedure as may be specified
F
for calculating the expected revenues from the tariff and charges
which he or it is permitted to recover.
(6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or
charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the
excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid
G such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank
rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the
licensee.
xxx xxx xxx

H
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 125
SEMICONDUCTORPOWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.].

64. Procedure for tariff order.-(1) An application for A
determination of tariff under section 62 shall be made by a
generating company or licensee in such manner and accompanied
by such fee. as may be determined by regulations.
(2) Every applicant shall publish the application, in such
abridged form and manner, as may be specified by the Appropriate B
Commission.
(3) The Appropriate Commission shall, within one hundred
and twenty days from receipt of an application under sub-section
( 1) and after considering all suggestions and objections received
from the public,-
c
(a) issue a tariff order accepting the application with such
modifications or such conditions as may be specified in that
order;
(b) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing
if such application is not in accordance with the provisions :D
of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder
or the provisions of any other law for the time being in
force:
Provided that an applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard before rejecting his application.
E
(4) The Appropriate Commission shall, within seven days of
making the order, send a copy of the o'rder to the Appropriate
Government, the Authority, and the concerned licensees and to
the person concerned.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part X, the tariff for
any inter-State supply, transmission or wheeling of electricity, as F
the case may be, involving the territories of two States may,
upon application made to it by the parties intending to undertake
such supply, transmission or wheeling, be determined under this
section by the State Commission havingjurisdiction in respect of · ·
the licensee who intends to distribute electricity and make G
payment therefor.
(6) A tariff order shall, unless amended or revoked, continue to
be in force for such period as may be specified in the tariff
order."
(Emphasis supplied) H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 3. A State Commission is constituted under Section 82 of the Act.
The Section to the extent relevant reads as follows:
"82. Constitution of State Commission.-( 1) Every State
Government shall, within six months from the appointed date, by
notification, constitute for the purposes of this Act, a Commission
B for the State to be known as the (name of the State) Electricity
Regulatory Commission:"
4. Section 86 of the Act provides for the functions of the State
Commission. To the extent relevant, the Section reads as follows:
"86. Functions of State Commission.-( 1) The State
c Commission shall discharge the following functions, namely:-
(a) determine the tariff for generation, SUQQly, transmission and
wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case
may be, within the State:
Provided that where open access has been permitted to a
D category of consumers under section 42, the State
Commission shall determine only the wheeling charges and
surcharge thereon, if any, for the said category of consumers;
(b) regylate electrici!Y Qurchase and Qrocurement Qrocess of
distribution licensees including the Qrice at which electrici!Y
E shall be Qrocured from the generating comQanies or
licensees or from other sources throus!h agreements for
Qurchase ofQower for distribution·and SUQI!lx within the
State;
(c) facilitate intra-State transmission and wheeling of electricity;
F (d) issue licences to persons seeking to act as transmission
. licensees, distribution licensees and electricity traders with
respect to their operations within the State;
(e) Qromote cogeneration and generation of electricitx from
renewable sources of energx bx Qroviding suitable measures
G for connectivi!Y with the grid and sale of electrici!Y to anx
Qerson, and also SQecify, for Qurchase of electricitv from
such sources, a Qercentage of the total consumQtion of
electrici!Y in the area of a distribution licensee;
(f) adjudicate UQon the disQutes between the licensees and
generating comQanies and to refer anx disQute for arbitration;
'H
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 127
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

(g) levy fee for the purposes of this Act; A
(h) specify State Grid Code consistent with the Grid Code
specified under clause (h) of sub-section ( l) of section 79;
(i) specify or enforce standards with respect to quality,
continuity and reliability of service by licensees;
B
G) ·fix the trading margin in the intra-State trading of electricity, ·~
if considered, necessary;
·. (k) discharge such other functions as may be assigned to. it
under this Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) C
5. Section 92 of the Act provides for the proceedings of the
Appropriate Commission.
"92. Proceedings of Appropriate Commission. - (1) The
Appropriate Commission shall meet at the head office or any
other place at such tiIJle as the Chairperson may direct, and shall D
observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of
business at its meetings (including the quorum at its meetings) as
it may specif)'."
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Section 94 deals with the powers of the Appropriate Commission E
and reads as follows:
"94. Powers of Appropriate Commission.- ( l) The
Appropriate Commission shall, for the purposes ofany inquiry
or proceedings under this Act, have the same powers as are F
vested in a civil court under the Code ofCivil Procedure, l 908
(5 of l 908) in respect of the following matters, namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance ofany person and
examining him on oath;
(b) discovery and production ofany document or other material G
object producible as evidence;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;(d) requisitioning ofanypublic
record;
H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A (e) issuing commission for the examination ofwitnesses;
(f) reviewing its decisions, directions and orders;
(g) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(2) The Appropriate Commission shall have the powers to pass
B such interim order in any proceeding, hearing or matter before
the Appropriate Commission, as that Commission may consider
appropriate.
(3) The Appropriate Commission may authorise any person, as
it deems fit, to represent the interest of the consumers in the
c proceedings before it."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Section 95 states that the proceedings before the Appropriate
Commission .shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings and the
D Appropriate Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court. To quote:-
"95. Proceedings before Commission.- All proceedings before
the Appropriate Commission shall be deemed to be judicial
proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and Appropriate Commission
E shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Sections
345 and346 oftheCodeofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ofl974)."
8. Section 181 of the Act provides for the power of the State
Commission to make regulations. To the extent relevant, the Section
reads as follows:
F "181. Powers of State Commissions to make regulations.-
( 1) The State Commissions may, by notification, make regulations
s;onsistent with this Act and the rules generally to carry out the
provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
G power contained in subsection (1 ), such regulations may provide
for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
xxx xxx xxx
(zl) rules of procedure for transaction of business under sub-
section (1) of section 92;"
H
GUJARAT URJA VIK.AS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 129
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

xxx xxx xxx A
(zp) any other matter which is to be, or may be, stiecified."
(Emphasis Supplied)
.
9. As per Notification No. 2 of2004 published 6n 25.08.2004,
the Gujarat Electricity RegulatoryCommission has notified the Gujarat B
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations.
Regulations 80 to 82 provide for .saving of inherent power of the
Coillmission, which read as follows:
"80. Nothing in these Regulations shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Commission to C
make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice
or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Commission.
81. Nothing in these Regufations shall bar the C9mmission from
adopting in conformity with the provisions of the Acts, a
procedure, which is at variance with any of the provisions D
of these Regulations, if the Commission, in view ofthe special
circumstances of a matter or class of matters and for
reasons to be recorded in writing, deems it necessary or
expedient for dealing with such a matter or class of matters.
82. Nothing in these Regulations shall, expressly or impliedly,
E
bar the Commission to deal with any matter or exercise
any power under the Acts for which no Regulations have
been framed. and the Commission may deal with such
matters. powers and functions in a manner it thinks fit.".
(Emphasis Supplied)
F
10. The Regulation 85 of the Conduct of Business Regulations
reads as follows:
"85. Subject to the provisions of the Acts, the time prescribed
by these Regulations or by order of the Commission for
doing any act may be extended (whether it has already . . G
expired or not) or abridged for sufficient reason by order of
the Commission."
(Emphasis Supplied) ·
. -·-- .

11. In the-context. of this case, certain provisions pf the Power
-_ Purchase Agreement (hereinafter referred to ~s "the PPA") dated H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 30.4.2010 between the parties are also relevant. Article 5 of the PPA
deals with "Rates and Charges". Article 5.2 reads as follows :-
"5 .2.GUVNL shall pay the fixed tariff mentioned hereunder for
the period of 25 years for all the Scheduled Energy/Energy
injected as certified in the monthly SEA by SLDC. The tariff is
B determined by Hon'ble Commission vide Tariff Order for Solar
based power project dated 29.1.2010 (sic).
Tariff for Photovoltaic project: Rs.15/KWh for First 12
Years and thereafter

c Rs. 5/KWh from 13th Year to 25th Years
•
Above tariff shall apply for solar projects commissioned on or
before Jlfil December 2011. In case, commissioning of Solar
Power Project is delayed beyond 31 fil December 2011, GUVNL
shall pay the tariff as determined by Hon'ble GERC for Solar
Projects effective on the date of commissioning of solar power
D
project or above mentioned tariff. which ever is lower."
(Emphasis Supplied)
The tariff order dated 29.01.2010 is in exercise of powers under
Sections 6l(h), 62(l)(a), 86(l)(e) and all other powers enabling it in this
E behalf'.
12. Article 8 of the PPA pertains to force majeure events. It
provides for events which constitute force majeure:
"ARTICLE 8
F FORCE MAJEURE
8.1 Force Majeure Events
(a) Neither Party shall be responsible or liable for or deemed in
breach hereof because of any delay or failure in the performance
of its obligations hereunder (except for obligations to pay money
G due prior to occurrence of Force Majeure events under this
Agreement) or failure to meet milestone dates due to any event
or circumstance (a "Force Majeure Event") beyond the
reasonable control of the Party experiencing such delay or failure,
including the occurrence of any the following:
H
GUJARAT URJA VIK.AS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 131
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

(i) acts of God; A
(ii) typhoons, floods, lightening, cyclone, hurricane, drought,
famine, epidemic, plague or other natural calamities;
(iii) acts of war (whether declared or undeclared), invasion or
civil unrest;
B
(iv) any requirement, actions or omission to act pursuant to any
judgment or order of any court or judicial authority in India
(provided such requirement, or action or omission to act is not
due to the breach by the Power Producer or. GUVNL of any
Law or any of their respective obligations under this Agreement);
c
(v) inability despite complying with all legal requirements to obtain,
renew or maintain required licenses or Legal Approvals;
(vi) earthquakes, explosions, accidents, landslides; fire;
(vii) expropriation and/or compulsory acquisition of the Project
· ·in whole or in part by Government Instrumentality; D
(viii) chemical or radioactive contamination or ionising radiation;
or
(ix) damage to or breakdown of transmission facilities ofGETCO/
DISCOMs;
E
(x) Exceptionally adverse weather conditions which are in excess
of the statistical measure of the last hundred ( 100) years.
xxx xxx xxx
8.2 Available Relief for a Force Majeure Event
F
No party shall be liable for(sic) breach of its obligations pursuant
to this Agreement to the extent that the performance of its
.obligations was prevented, hindered or delayed due to a Force
Maj eure event. For avoidance of doubt, neither Party's obligation
to make payments of money due and payable prior to occurrence
of Force Majeure events under this Agreement shall be suspended G
or excused due to the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event in
respect of such Party."
13. There were also certain communications between the parties
· which are required to be noted. On 19.04.2011 the first respondent
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A communicated its intention to change the location. The relevant portion
of the letter reads as follows :-
" ..... Originally the PPA was signed with an intention to develop
the 20 MW Solar PV Project at Village Ajawada, Taluka- Tharad,
District Banaskantha, Gujarat. But due to some unforeseen events
B we were unable to procure the Project land at Ajawada village
and identified THREE other Locations to procure the Land and
we had informed the some to your office vide our monthly
Progress Reports.
Now, we are happy to inform you that we have already
c acquired 60 acres of Land required for the commissioning of
first two phases of 5 MW at Shivlakha Village, Tal-Bhachau,
Dist.Kutch and enclosing herewith the details and copies of the
documents of the Land procurement. We have (sic) also made
advance Payments for another l 05 acres in the same Location
and will be completing the Land Registration before the end of
D this month.
xxx xxx xxx
d) We have already informed the details of Land
procurement to GETCO for the necessary survey and
E commencement of power evacuation process. Hence we kindly
request you to amend the PPA with respect to the change of
Location. We hereby submit the Copies of the documents as
proof of Land Procurement ... "
14. A Supplemental Power Purchase Agreement (hereinafter
F referred to as "the SPPA") was entered into by the parties on 10.05.2011.
Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the SPPAread as follows:-
"2.3. Since Mis. SSCPCIPL have changed the location of the
Solar Power Project after lapse ofsignificant time, nori-availability
of Transmission system shall not be considered as a ground for
non-leyy of Liquidated Damages. Mis. SSCPCIPL shall pay
G
Liquidated Damages even in case of non-availability of
transmission system for evacuation of power by Schedule
Commercial Operation Date.
2.4. All other terms and c-onditions including tariff of Power
Purchase Agreement dated 30!!! April 2010 between GUVNL
H
.
GUJARAT
.
URJA VIKAS NIGAM
. LTD. v. SOLAR. 133
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

and Mis. SSCPCIPL shall remain unchanged shall apply mutatis A
mutandis."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. It is also necessary to understand how this ,matter reached
this Court. Close to the scheduled commercial operation date, Respondent
No. 1 requested the Commission for an extension of the control period. B
The petition to the relevant extent reads as foll0ws.
"12. While the Petitioner is making best efforts to overcome the
delays as much as possible, it would not be feasible to complete
the project within the time stipulated. The Petitioner has done its
due diligence and with its commitment to expedite various C
activities, the Petitioner is optimistic that the project is likely to
be completed by the end of April 2012. The Petitioner has also
issued· a representation to the Department of Energy and
Petrochemicals on November 30, 2011 and to GUVNLpointing
out the various above mentioned reasons for delay. The Petitioner D
in the said letters has sought extension of time till force majeure
issues are resolved ...
PRAYER
13. In view of the above, it is therefore most respectfully submitted
that the Hon'ble Commissio,n may graciously be pleased to: E
(i)Extend the 'Control Period' till April 30, 2012 as defined by
this Hon'ble Commission in its Order dated 29!!! January, 2010;
(ii) Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon '.\Jle
· Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case." F

(Emphasis Supplied)
16. The Commission by order dated 27.01.2012 refused to extend
the control period. To quote :-
"14.3 Article 5.2 of the PPAprovides, inter alia,that "., .. Above G
tariff shall apply for power projects commissioned on or before
31 December 2011. In case, commissioning of Solar Power
Projects is delayed beyond 31 December 2011 ·, GUVNL shall
pay the tariff as determined by Hon'ble GERC for Solar Projects
effective on the day of commissioning of Solar Power Projects H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A or above mentioned tariff, whichever is lower". This means that
ifthe project is not commissioned within the stipulated period the
existing tariff or the new tariff whichever is lower will apply.
The petitioners have consciously agreed to this provision by
signing the PPA. The Commission has already circulated on 1
November 2011 a discussion paper for determining tariff for Solar
B
Projects for the second control period whicfr is to start from 29
January 2012. The tariff suggested is lower than the current
tariff. The petitioners have sought extension of the control period
in order to prevent the application of a lower tariff in the event
of not being able to commission the projects within the stipulated
c period. The reasons given by them are project specific. The
situations of various projects are widely different. In some cases,
the projects are at an advanced stage. In some other cases the
projects are at an initial stage, and in some cases. even the order
for equipment is yet to be issued. Some of them have asked for
one month and some others have asked as long as six months.
D
The petitioners have not been able to show that there has been a
problem which is industry-wide and spread over the whole State
or a major part of the State. necessitating an extension of the
control period. On the other hand, a number of projects have
been commissioned or are likely to be commissioned within the
E control period indicating that the issues raised by the petitioners
are not industry- wide. If some developers could not complete
the projects, it is not adequate justification why the tariff order
should be modified for extending the control period to give relief
to some project developers. This becomes more anomalous
especially when a discussion paper has already been issued, and
F
public hearing has already been completed for issue of the tariff
order for the next control period. Further, the issues which have
been raised can, if they so desire be addressed by the parties
concerned only within the frameworlc and the terms and conditions
of Power Purchase Agreement. If they invoke Force Majeure
G conditions, it is for them' to establish the existence of such
conditions, following the procedure prescribed in the PPA. There
cannot be a general order for addressing such issues which are
specific to some individual project developers, especially when
several others have successfully implemented their projects.
H
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 135
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

16. In view of the above analysis, we decide that the petitioners A
have not succeeded in making out a case for invoking the inherent
power of the Commission to extend the control period deterinined
by the Commission in its Order No. 2 of2010 dated 29 January
2010. Though they have put forward a number ofreasons for
the relief they have sought, none of the petitioners including the B
Association of Solar Power Developers, which has· filed a
separate petition, has indicated any ground whatsoever which is
of universal application either in the State of Gujarat ora major
part thereof by which all the projects are affected by such factors.
Several projects have been or are likely to be commissioned
during the control period itself. The reasons indicated by the C
petitioners appear to be in the manner of indirectly invoking the
Force Majeure clause specified in the PPA, which cannot be
addressed by a general order. Hence, all the petitions are
dismissed."
· (Emphasis Supplied) D
17. By its order dated 22.02.2012, the Commission, finding that
the reasons put forward by Respondent No. 1 herein are similar to those
dealt with by the Commission in its order dated 27.01.2012, dismissed
· the petition.
18. In appeal, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter E
referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") in the order dated 02.01.2013
dealt with this issue at paragraphs-24 to 27.
"24. The reasoning of the Commission that extending the control
period would mean· amendment of the Tariff Order is not at all
possible to concede to. The Commission, it will be noticed from F
the impugned order, was conscious that individual petitions referred
to individual project specific problems and issues and some prayed
for one month extension, while some prayed for six months
extension. The Corrimission came to the conclusion that unless
there would happen a state-wide and large scale ramifications G
then only there could be a case for issue of a general order to
extend the controlperiod. Yet, the Commission said at the same
breath that it has inherent power to extend the control period
and it was made available when GEICO was at default The

H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A basic premise that unless there is wide and large scale
ramifications across the State in respect of the renewable sources
of energy there cannot be extension of control period by general
order is, to say the least, not a legal approach and such an
approach would defeat the veiy spirit of the law. The GUVNL
· and the Govt. of Gujarat accepted the proposition that inherent
B
power can be exercised to a genuine problem. In paragraph 10.7
of the order impugned, the Commission has observed "Even if
we do not take into cognizance the above cited decisions of the
TNERC, the provisions of Regulation 80 of the Commission's
Regulations, Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and related
c decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it abundantly clear
that the Commission has inherent power to issue any order, to
meet the end ofjustice, if it is not inconsistent with the relevant
provisions of the Regulations/Act. This power is not limited to
only procedural matters." This observation makes it clear that
CommissiOn was dealing with the petitions by virtue of the power
D
expressly given to the Commission by their own Regulations to
exercise inherent power. The petitions of the two appellants were
not the ones under section 86 {l) {b) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Now, it is not logical to argue that unless there is state-wide
large scale ramifications inherent power cannot be exercised.
E The relevant Regulation of the Commission is exactly identical ·
in language and spirit with section 151 of the CPC. This provision
of inherent power does not by itself confer any power but only
indicates that there is a power to make an appropriate order as
may be necessaiy to achieve justice and prevent the abuse of
the process of law. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
F Court in Raj Bahadur Ras Raja Vs. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC
527, that the inherent power is not a power given to the Court, it
inheres in the Court itself so that by virtue of exercise of such
power, justice is rendered. In Ramji Dayawala Vs. Invest Import
(1981) 1 SCC 80, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
G discretion· vested in the Court is dependent on various
circumstances which the Court has to consider and there is no
limitation for application of the inherent power. Therefore, each
case has to be decided on its own merit and simply because of
the fact that some of the grounds were common to all the petitions
the treatment of the alleged common grounds has to be common.
H
"" ·~----

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 137
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

While saying so. we are not oblivious of the legal proposition that A
inherent power cannot be exercised when prohibited or excluded
by the statute itself and when there are specific provisions to
address the remedy. That is to say, inherent power can be
exercised only for the ends of justiCe. The very exercise of
inherent power or non-exercise of inherent power depends upon B
consideration of specific facts.·
25. The argument of the GUVNL and for that matter of the
Commission that extension of control period would be prejudicial
to the PPA is again not acceptable. Firstly, PPA is not subotdinate
to the Tariff Order although it is based on that. The provision in
the PPA that unless projects are corrimissioried within the C
specified period tariff a:s per the Tariff Order dated 29.1.2010
would not be available does not conflict with exercise of inherent
power, If situations having wide scale ramifications warrant
exercise of inherent power for exterision of control period then
also a certain PPA may have some consequences. Liquidated D
damages are available to the GUVNL only when defaults occur ·
on the part of the developer; but when a situation is seen where
circumstances regardless of whether wide scale ramifications
across the State happen or do nothappen werit beyond the control
of a developer then· exercise of the inherent power which the
Commission does have in their statute may be exercised but E
each case has to be decided on its own merit. The existence of
force-majeure condition definitely comes within the framework
of the Power Purchase Agreement but exercise of inherent
power is always case-specific and it cannot be equated with
force-majeure. Again extension of control period cannot by any F
stretch ofimaginatiori would amount to amendment of the Tariff
Order. Amendment of the Tariff Order by virtue of section 62
( 4) of the Electricity Act. 2003 was not prayed for. Since in every
venture there is allocation of risk, it cannot be said that even if a
·certain developer experiences hurdles beyond his control, he has
to abide by such hurdles. When fact in each case is hotly G
contested by a counterfact or denial, justice demands that each~-
- fact has to be separately dealt with and decided. It is the
Commission which is alone competent to scrutinise the merits
- and demerits of each fact in each of the two Appeals. It is the
Commission that has the infrastructure and capability to examine H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A and find as to whether expenditures were made and committed
ahead of the date of commissioning of the project so that no
unfair advantage is claimed by any developer on the ground of
prospective reduction of the capital cost. If the particulars of
expenditure if already made or committed during the control
period are scrutinised and the grounds are scrutinised in the
B
perspective of each individual case then possibly it would be
clear to the Commission as to whether and in which case a
developer comes with clean hands or not.
26. In the result, it is of absolute necessity that the Commission
needs to examine the case of each of the two appellants in their
c respective merits and decide afresh. The basic premise that
extension of control period is possible only when there are wide
scale ramifications is pregnant with flaws.
27. The Appeals succeed in view of the observations as
above and are thus allowed. We remand the matters back
D to the Commission for rehearing on merit of each individual
case and for decision according to law. No cost."
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. The above decision of the Appellate Tribunal dated 02.01.2013
E was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2315 of2013 with
Civil Appeal No. 2542 of2013. However, by Order dated 01.04.2013,
the appeal was dismissed in limine but this Court made it clear that the
Commission shall decide the whole issue without being influenced by
the observations made by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with
law. The Order reads as follows:
F
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The civil appeals are,
accordingly, dismissed. ·
G We, however, make it clear that the Commission shall decide the
whole issue without being influenced by the observations made
by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in accordance with law."
20. Once the matters were remanded to the Commission for
rehearing on merits of each case, the Commission vide order dated
H
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 139
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

05.04.2014 allowed the petition for extension of the control period. To A
quote:-
"11.26. Considering the above observations, we are of the view
that the delay which occurred in commissioning of the power
plant.was due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner had initiated construction activities of B
the Solar Power Project and completed the same which was
· recognized by the Chief Electrical Inspector in its letter dated
17.2.2012and13.03.2012 stating that the 8.64 MW Solar Power
PV Project of the petitioner was ready on 1.02.2012 and 1.48
MW Solar PV Power Project of the petitioner was ready for
energisation on21.02.2012. Therefore, it is a clear case in which C
the petitioner was unable to commission the above capacity of
· the power plant due to reasons beyond its control. The prayer of
the petitioner to extend the control period oforder No.2 of 2010
dated 29.1.2010 upto 30!!! April, 2012 is valid and the same is
allowed to provide the justice to the petitioner whose project D
was delayed.
xxx xxx xxx
11.28. We observe that the Article 8 of the PPA sets out the
. force majeure conditions which may restrain the project developer
from completing the project in time and consequences of such E
delay. On the other hand, the order dated 29.01.2010 determines
the generic tariff payable to the solar projects commissioned
during the control period of order. In the present case, the
petitioner has not raised any dispute and only seeks extension of
the control period. As such, the matter cannot be raised under F
Section 86 (l)(f).
11.29.Moreover, the Force Majeure clause agreed in the PPA is
a contractual arrangement betweeri the parties, whereas the
control period specified in the statutoiy generic tariff order by
the Commission is a time frame in which the project is required G
to be commissioned to become eligible to receive the tariff
determined by the Commission. While deciding the control period
the Commission takes into account normative conditions which
may prevail during execution of the project.

H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 11.30. The Commission has inherent powers to pass an
appropriate order to provide the justice to the affected person.
In the present case, the delay occurred in commissioning of the
project by the petitioner due to various reasons namely (i) Non
availability ofland for a longer time due to changes in Government
Policy/Law , and (ii) Non availability of evacuation facility by
B
GET CO. The above facts reflect that the delay in commissioning
of the project was partially due to change in government rules
regarding land acquisition and partially due to failure ofGETCO
in providing transmission line within stipulated period. Both these
reasons were beyond the control of the petitioner, though these
c may not form part of force majeure events. As such, we decide
that the present petition could not be filed under Section 86 ( 1)
(D of the Act."
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. The Appellate Tribunal at paragraphs-10.11 and 10.12 of the
D impugned judgment held that even under Regulation 85 of the Conduct
of Business Regulations, the Commission was within its power to extend
time and the same can be exercised even in an individual case. To quote:
"10.11 We have gone through the Conduct. of Business
Regulations, 2004 and the provisions provided under Section
86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and find that the learned
E
State Commission has rightly passed the impugned order
under its inherent powers. We are unable to accept the
contention of the Appellant that the State Commission
cannot exercise inherent power for the purpose of extending
the control period. We may clarify that the control period
F of the tariff order is fixed by the State Commission itself
and, hence, the State Commission has inherent powers to
extend the control period of the tariff order. There is no
restriction or fetter on the powers of the State Commission
in the Electricity Act, 2003 or under the Conduct of Business
Regulations. 2004 to pass such order as the State
G
Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the interest of
justice and discharge its ftmctions under the Electricity Act,
2003. The Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004 provide
inherent powers to the State Commission to pass any order
it deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice or to
H prevent abuse of the process of t~e court. The State
GUJARAT URJA VIK:AS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 141
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

Commission has liberty to exercise its inherent powers if A
the exercise of inherent power is not in any way in conflict
· with what has been expressly provided in the Civil Procedure
Code or against the intentions of the legislature which means
that the inherent power is not to be exercised in a manner
which will be contrary to or different from the procedure B
expressly provided in the Code.
10.12 Regulation 85 of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004
· dealing with Extension or abridgement of time prescribed
fairly provide that subject to the provisions of the Acts, the
time prescribed by these Regulations or by order of the
· Commission for doing any act may be extended (whether it C
has already expired or not) or abridged for sufficient reason
by order of the Commission."
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal while approving the views taken D
by the Commission held that the Commission was legally justified in
exercising its inherent power to extend the control period.
23. Now that the factual matrix of the case is laid out, we shall
proceed with our analysis of the same from the legal perspective.
24. At the outset, it is important to carefully note what the Supreme E
Court held while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 2315 of 2013. No doubt,
this CoUrt declined to interfere with the order passed by the.Appellate
Tribunal. This Court dismissed the appeal in limine, at the admission
~tage without discussing any legal issues for1he reason that the Appellate
Tribunal had only remitted the matter to the Commission. This Court has
F
notmade any authoritative ruling on the availability and exercise ofinherent
powers by the Commission.· Nor is there a stamp of approval of the
Appellate Tribunal's order. It was for this reason that this Court clarified
that the Commission should take an independent decision uninfluenced
by.the observations made oy the.Appellate Tribunal and that decision
s.h.ould be in accorda11ce with law. Therefore,. the decision of this Court G
is only on non-interference with the order ofAppellate Tribunal to remit
the matter to the Commission for a hearing on case-to-case basis and
this Cotirt did not make any obseryations with respect to the merits of
the matter. In other words, it is not an order agreeing with or upholding
the views ofthe Appellate Tribunal. It is also cruCially relevant to note
H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A that even according to the Appellate Tribunal, as stated in paragraph 27
of the order dated 02.01.2013, it had only made "observations" and in
view of those observations, the appeals were allowed by remitting the
matters to the Commission. This Court clearly held that the "whole
issue" should be examined ''without being influenced by the observations
B made by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity".
25. The question before us is whether the Commission has the
power to extend the control period provided under the tariff order. That
question is no more res integra. There ar!'! two recent judgments of this
Court which are relevant in this context. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited v. EMCO Limited and another•, this Court at Paragraphs-
C 39 and 40, has specifically held as follows:
"39. Apart from that both Respondent 2 and the
Appellate Tribunal failed to notice and the first respondent
conveniently ignored one crucial condition ofthe PPAcontained
in the last sentence of Para 5.2 of the PPA:
D
"In case, commissioning of solar power project is delayed
beyond 31-12-2011, GUVNL shall pay the tariff as determined
by the Hon'ble GERC for solar projects effective on the date
of commissioning of solar power project or abovementioned
tariff, whichever is lower."
E
The said stipulation clearly envisaged a situation where
notwithstanding the contract between the parties (the PPA). there
is a possibility of the first respondent not being able to commence
the generation of electricity within the "control period" stipulated
in the First Tariff Order. It also visualised that for the subsequent
F control period. the tariffs payable to a Projects/power producers
(similarly situated as the first respondent) could be different. In
recognition of the said two factors. the PPA clearly stipulated
that in such a situation. the first respondent would be entitled
only for lower of the two tariffs. Unfortunately. the said stipulation
G is totally overlooked by the second respondent and the Appellate
Tribunal. There is no whisper about the said stipulation in either
of the orders.
40. The first respondent has created enough confusion.
While on one hand the first respondent asserted a right to seek
H 1 (2016) u sec 1s2
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 143
SEMICOND"!JCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

determination of a separate tariff independent of the tariff fixed A
under the First Tariff Order in view of the stipulation contained
in the First Tariff Order that "for a project that does not get such
benefit, the Commission would, on a petition in that respect,
determine a separate tariff taking into account all the relevant
facts" did not seek a relief before the second respondent to B
determine a separate tariff but claimed the benefit of the Second
Tariff Order. Assuming for the sake ofargument that the petition
filed by the first respondent (1270/2012) is to be treated as an
application for determination of separate tariff which would be
identical with the tariff fixed unqer the Second Tariff Order,
whether the first respondent would be entitled for such a relief C
depends, if at all he is entitled to seek such a determination, on a
consideration of"all the relevant facts" but not by virtue of the
operation of the Second Tariff Order."
(Emphasis supplied)
This decision with its pointed reference to application of"lower D
of the two tariffs" squarely applies to this case.
26. However, while addressing another grey area as to whether
the Commission has the power to amend tariff despite the terms of the
PPA, this Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Tarini
Infrastructure Limited and others2, after analyzing scheme of the E
Act, has answered the question in affirmative.
· 27. The scheme of the Act has been analyzed at paragraphs-12
and 16, which read as follows:
"12. While Section 61 of the Act lays down the principles F
for determination of tariff, Section 62 of the Act deals with
different kinds .of tariffs/charges to be fixed. Section· 64
enumerates the manner in which determination of tariff is
required to be made by the Commission. On the other hand,
Section 86 which deals with the functions of the Commission
reiterates determination of tariff to be one of the primary G
functions of the Commission which determination includes, as
noticed above, a regulatory power with regard to purchase and
procurement of electricity from generating companies by entering
into PPA(s) .. The power of tariff determination/fixation
2 (2016) s sec 743 H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A undoubtedly is statutory and that has been the view of this Court
expressed in paras 36 and 64 of A.P. TRANSCO v. Sai Renewable
Power-(P) Ltd. This, of course, is subject to determination of
price of power in open access (Section 42) or in the case of
open bidding (Section 63). In the present case. admittedly. the
tariff incorporated in PPA between the generating company and
B
the distribution licensee is the tariff fixed by the State Regulatory
Commission in exercise of its statutory powers. In such a situation
it is not possible to hold thaf the tariff agreed by and between the
parties. though finds mention in a contractual context, is the result
of an act of volition of the parties which can, in no case, be
c altered except by mutual consent. Rather, it is a determination
made in the exercise of statutory powers which got incorporated,
in a mutual agreement between the two parties involved.
xxx xxx xxx
16. When the tariff order itselfis subject to periodic review
D it is difficult to see how incorporation of a particular tariff
prevailing on the date of commissioning of the power project
can be understood to bind the power producer for the entire
duration of the plant life (20 years) as has been envisaged by
Clause 4.6 of PPA in the case of Junagadh. That apart,
E modification of the tariffon account of air-cooled condensers
and denying the same on account of claimed inadequate pricing
ofbicigas fuel is itself contradictory."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. There is also a pointed reference to the decision of this Court
F in EMCO (supra) at paragraph-21, which reads as follows:
"21. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. EMCO Ltd.
the power purchaser sought the benefit of a second tariff order
made effective to projects commissioned after 29-1-2012 (the
power purchaser had commissioned its project on 2-3-2012)
G though under PPA it was to be governed by the first tariff order
of January 2010. Under the first tariff order for such projects
which were not commissioned on or before the date fixed under
the said order. namely, 31-11-2011 the tariff payable was to be
determined by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.
The power producer in the above case did not seek determination
H
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR 145
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

of a separate tariff but what was sought was a declaration that A
the second tariff order dated 27-1-2012 appliCable to PPA(s)
after 29-1-2012 would be applicable. It is in this context that this
Court had taken the view that the power producer would not be
relieved of its contractual obligations under PPA."
(Emphasis supplied) B
29. Having referred to the above decisions, we shall now make
an independent endeavor to analyze the present case in the context of
factual matrix and the relevant statutory provisions. An amendment to
tariff by the Regulatory Commission is permitted under Section 62(4)
read with Section 64(6) of the Act. Section 86(1)(a) clothes the c
Commission with the power to determine the tariff and under Section
86(1 )(b), it is for the Commission to regulate the price at which electricity
is to be procured from the generating companies. Section 86 ( 1)(e) deals
with promoting co-generation and generation of electricity fromrenewable
sources of energy. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with regard
to the power conferred on the Commission with reganho fixation of D
tariff for the electricity procured from the generating companies or
amendment thereof in the given circumstances.
30, Part X of the Act- from Sections 76 to 109 deals with
"Regulatory Commissions" providing for their constitution, powers and
functions. Section 92 read with Section 94 provides for the proceedings E
and power of the Commission while exercising its functions and powers.
Under Sectiori 92, the proceedings of the Commission are to be governed
by what is specified in the appropriate Regulation with regard to the
transaction of business at its meetings. It is that Regulation which is
referred to under Section 181 (zl) "ntles ofprocedure for transaction F
of busine. 1s under sub-section (1) of Section 92 ". Under Section
181(zp) other matters also can be specified. Section 2(62) defines
"specified" as "specified by regulations made by the Appropriate
Commission or .the Authority, as . the case may be, under this Act''.
-
31. Section 94 provides that the Appropriate Commission shall be G
vested with certain powers as are vested in a civil court, only in six
specified areas. Under Section 94(1 )(g), the Commission has the powers
_of a civil court in respect of"any other matter which may be prescribed".
Under Section 2(52) "prescribed means prescribed by rules made by
the Appropriate Government under this Act''. _
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 32. Regulations 80 to 82 are instances of such powers specified
by the Commission. Regul&tion 80 has provided for the inherent power
of the Commission to the extent of making such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process
of the Commission. It has to be borne in mind that such inherent powers
are to be exercised notwithstanding only the restrictions on the
B
Commission under the Conduct of Business Regulations, meaning thereby
that there cannot be any restrictions in the Conduct of Business
Regulations on exercise ofinherent powers by the Commission. But the
specified inherent powers are not as pervasive a power as available to a
court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
c "151. Saving of inherent powers of court.- Nothing in this
Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent
power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the
court."
D However, the Commission is enjoined with powers to issue appropriate
orders in the interest of justice and for preventing abuse of process of
the Commission, to the extent not otherwise provided for under the Act
or Rules. In other words, the inherent power of the Commission is
available to it for exercise only in those areas where the Act or Rules
E are silent.
33. Under Regulation 81, the Commission is competent to adopt a
procedure which is at variance with any of the other provisions of the
Regulations in case the Commission is of the view that such an exercise
is warrant~d in view of the special circumstances and such special
F circumstances are to be recorded in writing. However, it is specifically
provided under Section 181 that there cannot be a Regulation which is
not in conformity with the provisions of the Act or Rules.
34. Under Regulation 82, the Commission has powers to deal with
anymattcror exercise any powerunder the Act for which no Regulations
G are framed meaning thereby where something is expressly provided in
the Act, the Commission has to deal with it only in accordance with the
manner prescribed in the Act. The only leeway available to the
Commission is only when the Regulations on proceedings are silent on a
specific issue. In other words, in case a specific subject or exercise of
power by the Commission on a specific issue is otherwise provided under
H the Act or Rules, the same has to be exercised by the Commission only
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v.'SOLAR 147
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [KURIAN, J.]

taking recourse to that power and in no other manner. To illustrate further, A
there cannot be any exercise of the inherent power for dealing with any
matter which is otherwise specifically provided under the Act. The
exercise of power which has the effect of amending the PPA by varying
the tariff can only be done as per statutory provisions and not under the
inherent power referred to in Regulations 80 to 82. In other words there B
cannot be -any exercise of inherent power by the Commission on an
issue which is otherwise dealt with or provided for in the Act or Rules.
35. This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters
of exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at
stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly
ascertained from the Act. The Preamble of the Act mentions C
"protecting interest of consumers" and Section 61 (d) requires that the
interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when the Appropriate
Coinmission specifies the terms a11d conditions for determination of tariff.
Under Section 64 read with SectiOn 62, determination of tariff is to be
made only after considering all suggestions and objections received from D
the.public. Hence, the generic tariff once determined under the statute
with notice to the public can be amended only by following the same
procedure. Therefore, the approach of this Court ought to be cautious
and guarded when the decision has its bearing on the consumers.
36. Regulation 85 provides for extension of time. It may be seen E
that the same is available only in two specified situations-(i) for extension
of time prescribed by the Regulations and (ii) extension of time prescribed
by the Commission in its order for doing any act. The control period is
not something prescribed by the Commission under the Conduct of
Business Regulations. The control period is also not an order by the
Copunission for doing any act. Commissioning of a project is the act to F
be ~erforrned in terms of the obligation under the PPAand that is between
the producer and the purchaser, viz., the respondent no. I and appellant.
Hence, the Commission cannot extend the time stipulated under the PPA
for doing any act ·contemplated under the agreement in exercise of its
powers under Regulation 85: Therefore, there cannot be a extension of G
the control period under the inherent powers of the Commission.
37. The Commission being a creature of statute cannot assume to
itself any powers which are not otherwise conferred on it. In other words,
under the guise of exercising its inherent power, as we have already
noticed above, the Commission cannot take recourse to exercise of a H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I4 S.C.R.

A power, procedure for which is otherwise specifically provided under the
Act.
38. Extension of control period has been specifically held to be
outside the purview of the power of the Commission as per EMCO
(supra). This appeal is hence, allowed. The impugned orders are set
B aside. However, we make it clear that this judgment or orders of the
Appellate Tribunal or Commission shall not stand in the way of the
Respondent no. I taking recourse to the liberty available to them for re-
determining of tariff if otherwise permissible under law and in which
case it will be open to the parties to take all available contentions before
the Commission.
c
39. There shall be no order as to costs.
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. I have gone through the judgment of
His Lordship Justice Kurian Joseph. His Lordship's judgment though
comprehensive, having regard-to the importance of the questions raised,
D I prefer to give my own reasonings for my concurrence.
2. An appeal under Section I25ofthe Electricity Act, 2003 would
be maintainable only on the grounds specified in Section I00 of the Civil
Procedure Code i.e. only on substantial question of law. In the present
case, the following substantial questions oflaw arise for determination:-
E • Whether the State Commission has inherent powers to
extend the control period of Tariff Order dated 29 .0I.2010
beyond the control period thereby adversely affecting the
sanctity of PPA which was entered into by the parties by
consensus-ad-idem?
F • Whether the State Commission can invoke Regulations 80-
82 of Conduct of Business Regulations-inherent powers of
the Commission to grant substantive relief to the generating
company like respondent No. I and thereby alter the terms
of the contract arrived at between the parties consensus-
G ad-idem?
3. Brief facts are that the appellant and parent company of
respondent No. I executed Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) on
30.04.2010 for sale and purchase of electricity from 20 MW Solar PV
Power project to be established by the parent company of the first
H respondent. In the initial stage itself, there was a delay from 30.04.20 I 0
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 149
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

to 27.10.2010 firstly on account oftransferofSolarPowerproject in the A ·
name of parent company to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) ie.
respondent No.1 and an amendment of PPA in favour of the SPY.
Secondly, on account offirst respondent's decision to change their location
of the Solar Power project from District Bana.skantha to District Kutchh, .
there was delay from 19.04.2011 to 10.05.2011 i.e. till the date of
B
execution of the Supplemental Agreement. The Supplemental Agreement
dated 10.05.2011 itself was entered into after the Scheduled Commercial
Operation Date of the first plant i.e. 10.03.2011.
4. Article 5.2 of PPA specifically provided that the tariff
determined in the Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010, would be applicable
only ifthe project is commissioned by the specific date i.e. on or before C
.31.12.2011 and in case, delay is occasioned in coipmencement of the
project, the tariff mentioned in the PPA and the new tariff determined
·. , by-the. State Commission, whichever is lower, sha\l be applicable. Article
5.2 of the PPA reads as under:- ·'
"GUVNL shall pay the fixed tariff mentioned hereunder for the · D
period of25 years for all the Scheduled Energy/Energy injected
as certified in the monthly SEA by SLDC. The tariff is determined
by Hon'ble Commission vide TariffOrter for Solar based power
project dated 29.01.2010.
Tariff for Photovoltaic project: Rs. l~/KWh for First 12 years E
and. thereafter Rs.5/ KWh from
13th Year to 25'h Year.
Above tariff shall apply for solar projects commissioned on or
before 31" December 201'1. In case, commissioning of Solar
Power Project is delayed beyond 31. st December 2011, GUVNL F
shall pay the tariff as determined by Hon'ble GERC for So.tar
Projects effective on the date of commissioning of solar power
project or above mentioned tariff, whichever is lower."
Under the Supplemental Agreement dated 10.05.2011, respondent No.1
agreed to oblige all the terms and conditions of the PPA including the G
deadlines for completing the project. The agreement also recognized
that all other terms and conditions including tariff shall remain unchanged
(clause 2.4). Clause 2.3 of the Supplemental Agreement specifically
provided that since respondent No. l had changed the location after lapse
of significant time, respondent No. I shall pay the liquidated damages H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A even in case of non-availability of transmission system for evacuation.
Because of change of location, GETCO had to replan the entire
transmission line to be constructed. By executing the Supplemental
Agreement and also by paying liquidated damages, respondent No.I
acknowledged that GETCO would require time to establish the
evacuation facilities with reference to the new location i.e. District
B
Kutchh.
STATUTORY POWER OF THE STATE ELECTRICITY
REGULATORY COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE
TARIFF
c 5. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission is a body
corporate constituted in terms of Section 82 of the Act, vested with
certain important functions and powers specified under Sections 86 and
94 of the Act respectively. The body functions to achieve the purpose of
the Electricity Act, 2003 viz. · ... taking measures conducive to
development of electricity indust1:v, promoting competition therein,
D protecting interests of consumers and supply of electricity to all
areas, rationalization of electricity tariff. .. '.
6. Determination of tariff is one of the important functions of the
Commission, apart from other important functions specified in the Act.
Under Section 61, the Appropriate Commission is obligated to specify
E the terms and conditions for determination.oftariff, and in doing so, it
shall be guided by the factors enumerated therein in clauses (a) to (i). In
terms of Section 62 of the Act, the Appropriate Commission is authorized
to determine the tariff for supply of electricity by generating company to
a distribution licensee. However, in case ofshortage ofsupply of electricity,
F the Appropriate Commission may fix only the minimum and maximum
ceiling of tariff for a period not exceeding one year. The Appropriate
Commission is also authorized to determine the tariff for transmission,
wheeling and retail sale of electricity. While doing so, the Appropriate
Commission cannot show undue preference to any consumer of
electricity. The Act also provides that the tariff or any part thereof shall
G not be amended ordinarily more frequently than once in any financial
year.
7. Section 64 prescribes the procedure for issuing Tariff Order
which includes receiving the application for determination of tariff, its
publication, considering all suggestions and objections receiveJ from the
H public and issuing a consequent Tariff Order or rejecting the application
GUJARATURJAVIKASNIGAMLTD. v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 151
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [R BANUMATHI, J.]

if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and A
regulations made there-under or the provisions of any other law for the
time being force.
8. Respondent No.2, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') determined the
promotional tariff for solar power projects that may be based in the B
State of Gujarat during the control period of two years from .the date of
the order i.e. 29.01.2010 till 28.01.2012. The State Commission had
adopted the capital cost of Solar Photovoltaic Power Projed at Rs.16.50
crores per MW and taking note of other aspects, the Commission
determined the tariff for Solar Power Project at Rs.12.54 per unit. The C
Commission had consciously fixed the control period for its order dated
29.01.20 l 0 as two years, considering that the gestation period for Solar
PV projects is six months and that for the Solar Thermal Projects is 18-
24 months. Based on this Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010 for l"
respondent's Solar PV Power Project, tariff rate was fixed at Rs.15 per
kWh for the initial twelve years starting from the commercial operation D
of the project and Rs.5 per kWh from the thirteenth year to twenty fifth
year.
9. The. Commission had published a Discussion Paper on
01.11.2011 for public view inviting comments from stakeholders and
members of the State Advisory Committee on the draft order for the E
next Tariff Order. All the stakeholders had sent their views on the said
draft. After considering the said views of the stakeholders, in exercise
of the powers conferred under Sections 6l(h), 62(l)(a) and 86(l)(e) of
ElectricityAct, 2003 and considering National Tariff Policy and the power
procurement from New and Renewable Source of Energy Regulation
2008, Tariff Order 2012 for solar power and others was issued. As per F
Tariff Order 2012, the rates fixed for Solar PV projects are as under:-
Period 29 Jan.'12 to .1 Apr.'13 to 1 Apr.'14 to
31 Mar.'13 31 Mar.'14 31 Mar.'15 I
For megawatt-scale photovoltaic projects availing accelerated depreciation
i
Levelized Tarifffor R.•. 9.28 per Rs. 8.63 per R.•. 8.03 per kWh
I G
_2~ _ye~.rs............ ---------------------
kWh kWh - ----·--- ············--·······1
I
For fJrSt 12 years Rs. 9.98 per R.•. 9.13 per R.•. 8.35 per kWh I
kWh kWh I
For subsequent 13 Rs. 7.00 per R.•. 7.00 per R.•. 7.00 per kWh
years kWh kWh
For kilowatt-<icale photovoltaic projects availing accelerated depreciation
Levelized Tariff for R.•. 11.14 per R.•. 10.36 per R.•. 9.63 per kWh
25 vears kWh kWh I H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A The above tariffs as per Tariff Order 2012 is to be in force from
29.01.2012 to 31.03.2015. The above said tariff is fixed by the
Commission, on the basis of well founded parameters, such as, capital
cost of the project, income tax, return on equity etc. Be it noted, in the
present <:ase, the first respondent obtained the Chief Electrical Inspector
B Certificate, which is the statutory mandate as per Section 162 of the Act
only on 13.03.2012, nearly two months after the expiry of the Tariff
Order (2010).
WHETHER THE STATE COMMISSION HAS INHERENT
POWERS TO EXTEND THE CONTROL PERIOD OF TARIFF
ORDER DATED 29.01.2010 BEYOND THE CONTROL
C PERIOD IN RESPECT OF ONE PPA:
10. Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the State
Commission to make regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules
to carry out the provisions of the said Act and, inter alia, provide for the
matters indicated thereon. In exercise of the powers conferred under
D Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 127 of Gujarat
Electricity Industry (Re-organization and Regulation) Act, 2003 and all
powers enabling it in that behalf, the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory
Commission framed the Conduct of Business Regulation. Regulations
80 to 82 deal with inherent powers of the Commission, which read as
E under:c
"Saving of inherent power of the Commission
(80) Nothing in these Regulations shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Commission to
make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice
F or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Commission.
(81) Nothing in these RegulatiOJlS shall bar the Commission from
adopting in conformity with the provisions of the Acts, a
procedure, which is at variance w\th any of the provisions
ofthese Regulations, if the Commission, in view of the special
G circumstances of a matter or class of matters and for reasons
to be recorded in writing, deems it necessary or expedient
for dealing with such a matter or class of matters.
(82) Nothing in these Regulations shall, expressly or impliedly,
bar the Commission to deal with any matter or exercise
H any power under the Acts for which no Regulations have
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 153
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

been framed, and the Commission may deal with such A
matters, powers and functions in a manner it thinks fit."
The State Commission and the Appellate Tribunal held that under the
ConductofBus.iness Regulations, 2004 and Section 86 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, the State Commission has inherent jurisdiction to extend the
control period of the Tariff Order 2010 and the tariff rate thereon beyond B ·
28.01.2012. The Appellate Tribunal further held that the control period
of the Tariff Order was fixed by the State Commission itself and hence,
· the State Commission has inherent powers to extend the control period
of the Tariff Order.
11. Main contention urged by the first respondent is that the c
· question oflaw arising -whether the State Commission has the inherent
power or authority to extend the control period as fixed by it in its generic
Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010 arose in the first round oflitigation between
the parties and in the earlier round oflitigation, the State Commission
held that the Commission had no power to extend the control period in a
specific case and the power was only to extend the control period D
generally. It was contended that in the appeal filed by respondent No. I,
the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity vide its judgment dated 02.01.2013
set aside the judgment of the Commission holding that the Commission
has the inherent power to extend the control period in individual cases. It
was; therefore, urged by the first respondent that the question of law E
that the Commission has inherent power to extend the control period has
thus become final between the parties and the same now cannot be
reopened.
12. Jn the earlier round oflitigation, the State Commission had
· rejected the request of respondent No.1 to extend the time of control F
period of Tarift' Order (2010) beyond 28.01.2012. On appeal, the·
Appellate Tribunal {vide order dated 02.01.2013) had set aside the order
of the State Commission and remanded the matter to the State
Commission to decide the matter afresh. Jn the appeal preferred by
GUVNL before the Supreme Court, this Court dismissed the appeal by
an order dated 01.04.2013. However, this Court made it clear that the G·
State Commission shall decide the whole issue without being influenced
by the. observations made by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in
accordance with law.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. Giri submitted
that the Supreme Court specifically directed the Commission to decide H
154 ST 1PREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 14 S.C.R.

A the whole issue in accordance with law without being influenced by the
observations made by the Tribunal. As rightly contended by GUVNL,
the whole issue was, therefore, kept open before the State Commission.
Further, ifthe law was already settled by the Appellate Tribunal, there
was no requirement for this Court to direct the State Commission to
B consider the 'issue in accordance with law'. In my view, there is no
merit in the contention that the question of law on the Commission's
inherent jurisdiction to extend the control period has been settled inter-
se the parties in the earlier round oflitigation. Rival contentions of the
parties on this question have to be considered now.
14. Under Regulations 80 to 82, the inherent powers of the State
C Commission are saved. Under Regulation 80, which is akin to Section
151 CPC, the power of the State Commission is only intended to regulate
the conduct of the Commission, that is, to regulate its own procedure.
That power cannot travel beyond its own procedure so as to alter the
terms and conditions of the PPA entered into between the parties to
D grant substantive relief to the first respondent by extending the control
period of Tariff Order (2010) beyond 28.01.2012.
15. By a reading of Regulation 80, it is clear that inherent powers
of the State Commission are saved to make such orders as may be
necessary:- (i) to secure the ends of justice; and (ii) to prevent abuse of
E process of the Commission. The inherent powers being very wide and
incapable of definition, its limits should be carefully guarded. Inherent
powers preserved under Regulation 80 (which is akin to Section 151 of
the Code) are with respect to the procedure to be followed by the
Commission in deciding the cause before it. The inherent powers under
Section 151 CPC are procedural in nature and cannot affect the
F substantive right of the parties. The inherent powers are not substantive
provision that confers the right upon the party to get any substantive
relief. These inherent powers are not over substantive rights which a
litigant possesses.
16. The inherent power is not a provision of law to grant any
G substantive relief. But it is only a procedural provision to make orders to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
It cannot be used to create or recognize substantive rights of the parties.
In Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Another (2010) 8SCC1, it was
held as under:-
H
GUJARATURJA VIK.AS NIGAMLTD. v. SOLARSEMICONDUCTOR 155
POWER CO. (D PVT.LTD. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

"28. As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section A
151 is intended to apply where the Code does not cover any
particular procedural aspect, and interests of justice require the
exercise of power to cover a particular situation. Section 151 is
not a provision of law conferring power to grant any kind of
substantive relief. It is a procedural provision saving the inherent
B
power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the
court. It cannot be invoked with reference to a matter which is
covered by a specific provision in the Code. It cannot be
exercised in conflict with the general scheme and intent of the
Code. It cannot be used either to create or recognise rights, or to c
create liabilities and obligations not contemplated by any law.
29. Considering the scope of Section 151, in Padam Sen v. State
of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 218 this Court observed: (AIRp. 219,
paras 8-9)
"8 . ... The inherent powers of the court are in addition to the D
powers specifically conferred on the court by the Code. They
are complementary to those powers and therefore it must be
held that the court is free to exercise them for the pufposes
mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the exercise of
those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has · E
been expressly provided in the Code or against the
intentions of the legislature . ...
9. ... The inherentpowers saved by Section 151 of the Code
are with respect to the procedure to be followed by the Court
in deciding the cause before it. These powers are not powers F
over the substantive rights which any litigant possesses.
Specific powers have to be conferred on the courts for
passing such orders which would affect such rights of a
party."
0

30. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527 G
this Court held: (AIRp. 533, para21)
"21 . ... that the inherent powers are not in any way controlled
by the provisions of the Code as has been specifically stated in
Section 151 itself. But those powers are not to be exercised
when their exercise may be in conflict with what had been H
156 SUPREME COURT REPOR,TS [2017] l4 S.C.R.

A expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the
legislature."
31. In Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhaya/al
Bhargava AIR 1966 SC 1899 this Court reiterated that the
inherent power of the court is in addition to and complementary
B to the powers expressly conferred under the Code but that power
will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes
into conflict with any of the powers expressly or by necessary
implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. Section
151 however is not intended to create a new procedure or any
new right or obligation."
c
Same view was reiterated in Ram Prakash Agarwal and Another v.
Gopi Krishan (dead through LRs.) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 296.
17. In the case at hand, rights and obligations of the parties flow
from the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
D PPA is a contract entered between the GUVNL and the first respondent
with clear understanding of the terms of the contract. A contract, being
a creation of both the parties, is to be interpreted by having due regard to
the actual terms settled between the parties. As per the terms and
conditions of the PPA, to have the benefit of the tariff rate at Rs.15/-
per unit for twelve years, the first respondent should commission the
E Solar PV Power project before 31.12.2011. It is a complex fiscal decision
consciously taken by the parties. In the contract involving rights of
GUVNL and ultimately the rights of the consumers to whom the electricity
is supplied, Commission cannot invoke its inherent_jurisdiction to
substantially alter the terms of the contract between the parties so as to
F prejudice the interest ofGUVNL and ultimately the consumers.
18. As pointed out earlier, the Appellate Tribunal has taken the
view that the control period of the Tariff Order was fixed by the State
Commission itself and hence the State Commission has inherent power
to extend the control period of the Tariff Order. It may be that the tariff
G rate as per Tariff Order (2010) as determined by the Committee has
been incorporated in clause 5.2 of the PPA. But that does not in any
manner confer power upon the State Commission to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to extend the control period to the advantage of the project
proponent-first respondent and to the disadvantage of GUVNL who are
governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. It is not within the
B powers of the Commission to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to extend
GUJARAT URJA VII<AS NIGAM LTD,v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 157
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the control period to the advantage of any party and to the disadvantage A
of the other would amount to varying the terms of the contract between
the parties.
19. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted in
terms of clause 2.4 of the Supplemental Agreement dated 10.05.2011
that all the terms and conditions including tariff fixed in PPA dated B
30.04.2010 shall remain unchanged, it must be performed by respondent
No. I in the same fashion as had been acknowledged by him. Mr. Giri
further submitted that in terms of clause 2.3 of the Supplemental
Agreement that respondent No. I has agre-ed that no changes in respect
of respondent No. 1's liability to pay liquidated damages shall be
entertained on account of delay in procuring transmission system or C
otherwise and respondent No. 1 actually paid an amount of Rs. 23.25
lacs to GUVNLon 14.07 .2011 thereby indicating that respondent No. 1
had acceded to. the terms and conditions of the PPA and that the project
was not commissioned by its Scheduled Commercial Operation Date
other than the reasons mentioned in clause 5.3 of the agreement. It was D
further argued that ifthe commissioning of the first respondent's project
had been delayed due to the reasons beyond its control, respondent No.
1 would have invoked force majeure clause and by paying liquidated
damages for the delay in commissioning, respondent No. 1 did not consider
· - anyof the events beyond its control. It was, therefore, urged that when
respondent No. 1 had consciously a<;cepted the terms of the PPA, E
respondent No. 1 cannot be alloweCi to revert back from the terms of
the PPA and the Commission cannot substitute its views by invoking
inherent powers of the State Commission. Since we are giving liberty to
the first respondent to approach the Commission: we are not expressing
-our views on the above contention. The appellant is at liberty to raise all F
the_se contentions before the Commission and this contention is left open.
20. Yet another contention raised by the appellant is that the project
of respondent No. I was commissioned/ready for commissioning only
after the cut-off date and the power project was ready for commissioning
only after 17.02.2012 and 13.03.2012 when the Certificate of Chief G
Electrical Inspector was granted. It is, therefore, contended by the .
appellant that the certificate of Chief Electrical Inspector is a statutory
requirement and without the approval of the Chief Electrical Inspector,
respondent No.1 could not have energized the electrical installations.
This contention is also left open.
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 21. As pointed out earlier, the State Commission has determined
tariff for solar power producers vide order dated 29.01.2010 and tariff
for next control period vide order dated 27.01.2012. The order dated
29.01.20 I 0 is applicable for projects commissioned from 29.01.201 Oto
28.01.2012 and the order dated 27.01.2012 is applicable for projects
B commissioned from 29.01.2012 to 31.03.2015. As pointed out earlier,
the tariff is determined by the State Commission under Section 62. The
choice of entering into contract/PPA based on such tariff is with the
Power Producer and the Distribution Licensee. As rightly contended by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the State Commission in
exercise of its power under Section 62 of the Act, may conceivably re-
c determine the tariff, it cannot force either the generating company or
the licensee to enter into a contract based on such tariff nor can it vary
the terms of the contract invoking inherent jurisdiction.
SANCTITY OF POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
22. It is contended that Section 86( I)(b) of the Act empowers the
D, State Commission to regulate the price of sale and purchase of electricity
between the generating companies and distribution licensees and the
terms and conditions of the PPA cannot be set to be inviolable. Merely
because in PPA, tariff rate as per Tariff Order (20 I0) is incorporated
that does not empower the Commission to vary the terms of the contract
E to the disadvantage of the consumers whose interest the Commission is
bound to safeguard. Sanctity of PPA entered into between the parties
by mutual consent cannot be allowed to be breached by a decision of the
State Commission to extend the earlier control period beyond its expiry
date, to the advantage of the generating company-respondent No. 1 and
disadvantage of the appellant. Terms of PPA are binding on both the
F parties equally,
23. In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. EMCO Limited
and Another (2016) 11 SCC 182, facts were similar and the question of
law raised was whether by passing the terms and conditions of PPA,
respondent can assail the sanctity of PPA. This Court held that Power
G Producer cannot go against the terms of the PPA and that as per the
terms of the PPA, in case, the first respondent is not able to commence
the generation of electricity within the 'control period' the first respondent
will be entitled only for lower of the tariffs .
. 24. The first respondent placed reliance upon Gujarat Urja Vikas
H Nigam Limited v. Tarini Infrastructure Limited and Others (2016)
GUJARATURJAVIKASNIGAMLTD. v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 159
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

8 SCC 743. In the said case, this Court was faced.with the substantial A
question of law viz. whether the tariff fixed under a PPA (Power Purchase
Agreement) is sacrosanct and inviolable and beyond review and correction
by ihe State Electricity Regulatory Commission. In that case, respondent
No. I thereon-power producer had entered into a PPA with the appellant
therein~distribution licensee for sale of electricity from the generating B
stations to the extent of the contracted quantity for a period of 35 years .
at Rs. 3.29 per KWH subject to escalation of3% per annum till date of
commercial operation. However, later the power producer Jound that
the place from where the power was to be evacuated was at a distance
of23 kms. as opposed to a distance of 4 kms, envisaged in the concession
agreement entered into between the Respondent-power producer and C
Narmada Water Resources Department (Respondent No.2 therein). On
this ground respondent had sought revision of tariff by State Electricity
Commission. This Court held that Section 86( 1)(b) of Act empowers
State Commission to regulate price of sale and purchase of electricity
between generating companies and distribution licensees through
agreements for power, produced for distribution and supply and that the
state commission has power to re-determine the tariff rate when the
tariff rate mentioned in the PPA between generating company and
distl'ibution licensee was fixed by State Regulatory Commission in
exercise of its statutory powers. Relevant portion of the paras (17) and
(18) of the judgment, read as under:- E
"17. As already noticed, Seetion 86(l)(b) of the Act empowers
the State Commission to regulate the price of sale and purchase
of electricity between the generating companies and distribution
licensees through agreements for power produced for distribution
and supply. As held by this Court in V.S. Rice & Oil Mills v. F
State of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1781, K. Ramanathan V; State of
T.N. (1985) 2 SCC 116 and D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of
Gujarat 1986 Supp. SCC 20 the power of regulation is indeed
ofwide import...
18. All the above would suggest that in view of Section 86(l)(b) G
the Court must lean in favour of flexibility and not read inviolability
in terms of PPA insofar as the tariff stipulated therein as approved
by the Commission is concerned. It would be a sound principle
of interpretation to confer such a power ifpublic interest dictated
by the surrounding events and circumstances require a review
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A of the tariff. The facts of the present case, as elaborately noted
at the threshold of the present opinion, would suggest that the
Court must lean in favour of such a view also having due regard
to the provisions of Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1898 ...."
B In the facts and circumstances of that case and that the tariff rate of
Rs.3.29/- per KWH was subject to escalation and subject to periodic
review. Evacuation was changed from a distance of 4 kms. to 23 kms.
from its switch yard. On account of the same, respondent No.1 therein
had incurred an additional cost of about Rs.10 crores which was not
envisaged in the Concession Agreement. In such facts and changed
C circumstances, this Court thought it apposite to take a lenient view and
allow the State Commission to re-determine the tariff rate.
25. 1n exercise of its statutory power, under Section 62 of the
Electricity Act, the Commission has fixed the tariff rate. The word 'tariff'
has not been defined in the Act. Tariff means a schedule of standard/
D prices or charges provided to the category or categories for procurement
by li1;ensee from generating company, wholesale or bulk or retail/various
categories of consumers. After taking into consideration the factors in
Section 61(1 )(a) to (i), the State Commission determined the tariff rate
for various categories including Solar Power PV project and the same is
E applied uniformly throughout the State. When the said tariff rate as
determined by the Tariff Order (2010) is incorporated in the PPA between
the parties, it is a matter of contract between the parties. In my view,
r~spondent No.I is bound by the terms and conditions of PPA entered
into between respondent No. I and the appellant by mutual consent and
that the State Commission was not right in exercising its inherent
F jurisdiction by extending the first control period beyond its due date and
thereby substituting its view in the PPA, which is essentially a matter of
contract between the parties.
26. Section 94 of the Electricity Act deals with the powers of the
Commission as far as the conduct of the proceedings. Under Section
G 94( 1)(f), the Commission has the power to review its own decision. The
power of review under Section 94 (l)(f) is akin to that under Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. At the instance of affected parties or the generating
companies or the Commission on its own motion may review its own
decision only if such order was made under: (i) mistake or error of fact
H apparent on the face of the record; (ii) discovery of new and important
GUJARATURJA VIK.AS NIGAM LTD. v. SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR 161
POWER CO. (I) PVT. LTD.[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

matter which was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time when A
the order was made; or (iii) any other sufficient reason to meet the ends
of justice. Contention of the appellant is that grounds were made out by
the first respondent for review of first Tariff Order which was applicable
till 28.01.2012. In support of this contention,-reliance was placed upon
S. Nagaraf and Others v. State ofKarnataka and Another 1993 Supp. B
(4) SCC 595, wherein this Court has aptly described the object of'power
to review' and the circumstances under which the court shall exercise
the power of review. This contention is also left open.
27. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayant Bhushan for the·
n:spondent submitted that if the tariff as per order dated 27.01.2012 is , C
applied, respondent No.l would be forced to shut down due to non-
recovery of costs. Drawing our attention to the capital cost of Solor PV
projects, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Giri submitted that such
contention is contrary to the own admission of the first respondent.
Contending that India's solor power installations have grown and cost
tag of solor power has been reduced remarkably, learned Senior Counsel D
Mr. Giri submitted that even on equity, the first respondent cannot claim
tariff rate as per Tariff Order(2010). It was contended that under the
Tariff Order dated 29;01.2010 the capital cost was finalized at Rs.16.50
crores per MW and tariff rate was fixed at Rs.12.54 per kWh and for
power project of 20 MW of respondent No. I, the total cost would be
around Rs.330 crores. Drawing our attention to the Tariff Order dated E
27.01.2012,itwas submitted that as per Tariff Order (2012), the capital
cost was finalized at Rs.10 crores per MW and for a 20 MW power
project, this would amount to a total cost of about Rs.200 crores. It was
urged that the cost of solar PV projects which was in range in 2011
between Rs.10.00 crores and Rs.11.00 crores per MW is expected to F
further come down in future. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent
- No. l before this Court, it is stated that the first respondent has invested
about Rs.200 crores in the project. The learned Senior Counsel for _the
appellant Mr. Giri contended that even as per the adinission of respondent
No.I, it has incurred total cost ofRs.200·crores i.e. Rs.10.00 crores per
MW which is relatable to the Tariff Order dated 27.01.2012 and not the G
previous Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010 and having incurred capital ·
expenditure of Rs.200 crores, the first respondent cannot claim higher
tariff rate as per the Tariff Order 2010 based on capital cost of Rs.330
crores and if the contention of respondent No.1 is to be accepted, it
would only enable respondent No.J to make undue gains at the cost of fI
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A the consumers in the State. It was urged that extension of control period
of the Tariff Order (2010) qua the first respondent would cause huge
loss to GUVNL and loss to GUVNL means that this loss is to be passed
on to the consumers in the form of increased tariff and therefore it was
contended that the Commission ought to have taken note of all the
B stakeholders namely the appellant and the consumers and not merely
the claim of respondent No. I. Since liberty is granted to the first
respondent to approach the Commission, we are not inclined to go into
the merits of this contention urged by GUVNL. Liberty is granted to
GUVNL to urge the above contentions before the Commission and the
Commission to consider the same on its own merits.
c 28. Conclusions:- (i) When the I" respondent commissioned
its project beyond 13.03.2012, Commission cannot exercise its inherent
jurisdiction and vary the terms to extend the control period of Tariff
Order dated 29.01.2010 in so far as .the I'' respondent of the contract-
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between GUVNL and the first
D respondent; (ii) the earlier order passed by this Court in C.A. No.2315
of2013 (dated 01.04.2013) has not conclusively decided the substantial
question oflaw inter-se the parties"that is exercise of inherent jurisdiction
by the Commission to vary the terms of PPA by extending the control
period beyond the stipulated time. On the above reasonings, I agree with
the conclusion of my esteemed brother Justice Kurian Joseph.
E

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.