2019 INSC 0606
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5139 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8432 of 2017)
M/S Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.    ..…Appellant(s) 
Versus
Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission   ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. This  appeal  takes exception  to  the  judgment  and order  of  the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in C.W.P.
No.25337   of   2015   (O   &   M)   dated   23 rd
  November,   2016.   The
appellants   had   challenged   the   fourth   amendment   to   Haryana
Electricity   Regulatory   Commission   (Terms   and   Conditions   for
determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources, Renewable
Purchase Obligation and Renewable Energy Certificate) Regulations,

2
2010   (for   short,   “ principal   Regulations ”)   published   vide
notification   dated   12 th
  August,   2015   (for   short,   “ impugned
Amended   Regulations ”)   which   sought   to   amend   the   principal
Regulations.   The   appellants   had   also   challenged   the   order   passed
by   the   respondent­Commission   dated   4 th
  August,   2015,   in
furtherance   whereof,   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations   were
framed   by   the   appropriate   authority   for   revision   of   norms   for
determination   of   generic   tariff   for   the   second   control   period
beginning from 1 st
 April, 2013. 
3. The   appellants   had   set   up   a   9.90   MW   independent   Biomass
Power   Plant,   which   was   declared   commercially   operational   on   3 rd
May, 2013. The principal Regulations were notified on 3 rd
 February,
2011, providing for the norms and parameters for determination of
tariff   for   various   renewal   energy   project   developers.   As   per
Regulation 4 of the principal Regulations, the first control period of
three   years   was   to   end   on   31 st
  March,   2013.   The   third   proviso   of
Regulation 4 posits that in case, the regulations for the next control
period   were   not   notified   after   the   expiry   of   the   first   control   period,
the   tariff   norms   as   per   these   regulations   (principal   Regulations)
would continue to apply until notification of the revised regulations,

3
subject   to   adjustments   as   per   the   revised   regulations.   As   the   first
control   period   had   already   ended,   the   appropriate   authority
initiated   suo motu   proceedings for revision of tariff and issued draft
fourth   amendment   to   the   principal   Regulations,   seeking   to   amend
Regulation   4   and   including   Regulation   5   of   the   principal
Regulations.   This   draft   amendment   was   issued   on   29 th
  December,
2014.   Pursuant   thereto,   the   concerned   parties   submitted   their
response. After giving opportunity to all concerned, the Commission
proceeded to pass an order dated 4 th
 August, 2015, which attempts
to   analyse   and   adjudicate   all   the   issues   raised   by   the   concerned
parties.   On   the   basis   of   the   said   order,   the   impugned   Amended
Regulations came to be notified. The effect whereof was to deny the
applicability   of   tariff   norms   adjustments   to   the   appellant   No.1,
which had commenced its commercial operations on 3 rd
 May, 2013.
The   said   amendment   has   been   given   prospective   effect   qua   the
appellants.   It   has   made   classification   between   the   projects
commissioned/to   be   commissioned   in   financial   years   2013­14   on
the   one   hand   and   2014­15,   2015­16   and   2016­17   on   the   other,
without   any   intelligible   differentia   or   any   rational   basis   therefor.
Neither   the   principal   Regulations   nor   the   impugned   Amended
Regulations envisage classification on the basis of commissioning of

4
renewable   energy  projects   in   a   particular  financial   year   during  the
same   control   period.   Similarly,   the   regulations   do   not   envisage
determination of separate tariff on such differentiation. Indeed, the
authority has been invested with power to determine project specific
tariff   under   Regulation   6.   In   the   present   case,   however,   the   power
exercised   by   the   Commission   is   indisputably   with   reference   to
Regulation   4   namely,   to   determine   a   generic   tariff   for   the   control
period   commencing   from   1 st
  April,   2013   and   ending   with   financial
year 2016­17 i.e. 31 st
 March, 2017, for a period of 4 years. 
4. In this back drop, the appellants filed writ petition and prayed
for the following reliefs: 
“ PRAYER
It   is   therefore   most   respectfully   prayed   that   this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
in   the   nature   of   Certiorari   for   setting   aside   the
Impugned   Notification   dated   12.08.2015  (Annexure  P­
1)   and   the   Impugned   Order   dated   04.08.2015
(Annexure P­2) passed by the Respondent to the extent
the   same   seeks   to   apply   the   revised   regulations   with
effect from the date of the Impugned Notification; and 
b. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
in   the   nature   of   Mandamus   directing   the   Respondent
to   apply   the   revised   regulations   on  and  from   the   date
of   commencement   of   the   Second   Control   Period   i.e.
with effect from 01.04.2013; and 

5
c. Issue an appropriate writ under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of, order or direction
in   the   nature   of   Mandamus   directing   the   Respondent
to publish the revised tariff after adjusting the same as
per   the   revised   regulations   from   the   first   day   of   the
Second   Control   Period   i.e.   01.04.2013,   and   to   further
allow carrying cost on the overdue amounts; and
d. Issue   an   appropriate   interim   direction   granting   ad­
interim   ex­parte   stay   of   operation   of   the   Impugned
Notification   dated   12.08.2015   (Annexure   P­1)   and   the
Impugned   Order   dated   04.08.2015   (Annexure   P­2)
passed by the Respondent; and 
e. Dispense   with   serving   advance   notice   upon   the
Respondent; and 
f. Costs   of   the   Writ   Petition   be   awarded   to   the
Petitioners; and 
g. Dispense   with   filing   of   certified   copies/true   typed
copies of Annexures P­1 to P­10, and the photo/typed
copies   of   the   Annexures   may   kindly   taken   on   record
and   the   requirement   of   filing   typed/certified   copies
thereof be dispensed with; and 
h. Pass   such   other   order(s)   as   this   Hon’ble   Court   may
deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.” 
5. The   appellants   raised   almost   thirty   grounds   as   articulated   in
the   writ   petition,   in   support   of   the   reliefs   claimed   by   them.   They
have attempted to demonstrate as to how the amended regulations
were   arbitrary,   unreasonable,   capricious   and   discriminatory.   The
respondent   refuted   the   stand   taken   by   the   appellants   by   filing

6
elaborate counter affidavit and mainly relied on the order passed by
the Commission dated 4 th
  August, 2015, which was the foundation
for   the   amendment   of   the   relevant   provisions   of   the   principal
Regulations.  The  reply  affidavit  filed  by  the  respondents  before the
High Court runs into about 60 typed pages (forming part of volume
II of the paper book). Accordingly, the writ petition proceeded before
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.   The   High   Court   in   the
impugned  judgment   has  noted  that  the   appellants   had  raised  only
two   contentions,   as   can   be   discerned   from   paragraph   6   of   the
impugned judgment. The same reads thus:
 
“6. The   grievance   of   the   petitioners   is   two   fold.
Firstly   with   the   issuance   of   notification   of   the
Amended   Regulations   on   12.8.2015,   there   would   be
different   treatment   for   the   persons   operating   in   the
same   control   period;   namely,   who   had   commissioned
their   projects   in   the   year   2013­14   and   the   persons,
who   had   commissioned   thereafter,   the   control   period
being same i.e. for the years from 2013­14 to 2016­17.
Further,   it   was   submitted   that   out   of   the   control
period prior to the date of notification of the Amended
Regulations   only   financial   year   2013­14   has   been
isolated   for   different   treatment,   which   is
discriminatory.   How   any   of   alleged   Regulation   is
affecting   the   petitioner   was   not   specifically   pointed
out.”
We would proceed on the basis that this was the limited argument
canvassed   before   the   High   Court   during   the   hearing   of   the   writ
petition. However, what is intriguing to note is that even these two

7
points   have   been   disposed   of   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   in   a   most   cursory   manner   without   analysing   the   issues   in
proper   perspective,   as   can   be   discerned   from   the   discussion   in
paragraph Nos.13 to 15 of the impugned judgment. The same reads
thus: 
“13. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   exercise   for   revision   of
the   2010   Regulations   was   not   started   six   months
before   the   expiry   of   the   existing   control   period   on
31.3.2013.   The   exercise   was   started   only   in   the   year
2015.   Public   hearing   was   held   in   which   even   the
petitioner­company   was  represented.  Vide  order  dated
4.8.2015,   the   Commission   approved   the   proposed
amendments   in   the   2010   Regulations.   The   Amended
Regulations   in   terms   of   the   order   passed   by   the
Commission   were   notified   on   12.8.2015.   Regulation
1(2)   of   the   Amended   Regulations   provides   that   the
Regulations   shall   be   applicable   to   all   the   Renewable
Energy   Projects   Commissioned/to   be   commissioned
from   Financial   Years   2013­14   to   2016­17,   as   the
control   period   of   four   years   was   provided.   Regulation
1(3)  of   the   Amended   Regulations   provides   that   for   the
existing   projects   commissioned   from   Financial   year
2013­14   onwards,   the   revised   norms   shall   be
applicable prospectively from the date of notification of
the Amended Regulations unless otherwise provided in
the   Amended   Regulations.   For   the   period   prior   to   the
date   of   notification,   existing   norms   as   per   the   2010
Regulations   shall   continue   to   be   applicable.   The
Amended Regulations were to come into force from the
date of publication in the official gazette. The Amended
Regulation  (4)   provides   that   the   second   control   period
shall be of four years commencing from Financial year
2013­14.   3 rd
  proviso   thereto   provides   that   in   case
revised   regulations   for   the   next   control   period   are   not
notified on or before the commencement of that period,
the tariff norms as per the Amended Regulations shall
continue to remain applicable, until notification of the
revised regulations and the second control period shall
be   deemed   to   have   been   extended   upto   the   date   of
notification   of   the   regulations   for   the   next   control
period. 

8
14. The contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners   that   there   is   discriminatory   application   of
regulations qua the petitioners’ company only because
it   started   operation   in   the   Financial   year   2013­14,   as
compared   to   the   other   projects,   which   started
functioning   after   Financial   year   2013­14   is   merely   to
be   noticed   and   rejected.   Though   the   control   period   is
from   the   Financial   Years   2013­14   to   2016­17,
however, the Amended Regulations clearly provide that
for   the   existing   projects   from   Financial   year   2013­14
onwards,   the   revised   norms   shall   be   applicable
prospectively,   from   the   date   of   notification   of   the
Amended Regulations. 
15. As   far   as   the   second   contention   raised   by
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   regarding
application of the Amended Regulations in terms of 3 rd
proviso   to   Regulation   4   of   the   2010   Regulations   is
concerned, it  clearly provides that  the existing  norms,
even for the period subsequent to the expiry of control
period,   shall   be   applicable   till   such   time   revised
Regulations   are   notified.   However,   the   same   shall   be
subject to adjustments as per revised regulations. That
would mean, adjustments, if any, are to be specifically
provided for in the Amended Regulations for the period
prior   to   the   notification   of   Amended   Regulations.
Wherever special conditions have been provided for  in
the   Amended   Regulations   for   different   years,   learned
counsel   for   the   petitioners   did   not   point   out   how   that
prejudiced   the   petitioners.   It   is   all   matter   of
calculations   for   which   facts   were   examined   by   the
Commission   while   passing   the   order   on   4.8.2015,   on
the basis of which, the Regulations were amended.”
As a matter of fact, paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment merely
notices   some   factual   aspects.   The   reason   which   weighed   with   the
High Court to negative the issues agitated by the appellants can be
noticed   only   from   paragraph   Nos.14   and   15,   which   ex   facie   to   say
the least is cryptic. 

9
6. Resultantly, the appellants have approached this Court by way
of present appeal. The main argument of the appellants is that the
principal   Regulations   which   indeed,   applied   to   the   control   period
from 3 rd
  February, 2011 until 31 st
  March, 2013, but envisaged that
the   same   would   continue   to   remain   applicable   until   notification   of
the   revised   regulations   is   issued,   subject   to   adjustments   as   per
revised   regulations.   These   regulations   make   no   distinction   on   the
basis of commissioning of project on financial year basis during the
same   block   period   or   thereafter   until   its   application   during   the
extended period. Rather, the control period referred to in Regulation
4   encompasses   all   the   projects   commissioned   during   that   block
period and including extended period and must be treated alike. In
other   words,   the   same   generic   tariff   must   apply   to   all   the   projects
commissioned   during   the   relevant   block   period   i.e.   from   3 rd
February,   2011   to   31 st
  March,   2013   and   until   the   issue   of   revised
regulations,   subject   to   adjustments   as   per   revised   regulations.
Therefore,   the   amended   regulations   must   be   read   in   light   of   the
principal   Regulations.   However,   the   amended   regulations   entail   in
denying  the   applicability  of the  revised regulations to   R.E.   projects
commissioned   in   FY   2013­14,   such   as   the   appellant,   which   was

10
commissioned   on   3 rd
  May,   2013.   The   amended   regulations   are   for
the   second   control   period   commencing   from   1 st
  April,   2013   and
ending on 31 st
  March, 2017 for a period of four years, of which the
first year has been defined as FY 2013­14. Despite this position, the
amended regulation 1(3) makes exception to the applicability of the
revised   regulations   to   the   projects   commissioned   during   FY   2013­
14,   by   making   it   applicable   prospectively   from   the   date   of
notification   of   the   impugned   Regulations   on   12 th
  August,   2015.
Whereas, the projects commissioned during 20014­15 and onwards
during the selfsame second control period referred to therein would
get  the  benefit  of  the  revised  regulations   for  the   entire  period   from
the   date   of   commissioning   commercial   production,   without   there
being any intelligible differentia. In other words, the appellants have
been denied benefit of the revised regulations for the period between
3 rd
 May, 2013 to 12 th
 August, 2015. The effect of such a provision is
to   take   away   the   benefit   which   had   enured   to   the   appellants   in
terms of Regulation 4 of the principal Regulations, which predicates
that the tariff norms as per the principal Regulations shall continue
to   remain   applicable   until   notification   of   the   revised   regulations,
subject  to   adjustments   as  per  the  revised  regulations.   Resultantly,
the   impugned   Amended   Regulations   suffer   from   the   vice   of   hostile

11
discrimination   between   persons   similarly   placed   namely,   projects
commissioned   during   the   block   of   second   control   period   governed
by the Amended Regulations, without any intelligible differentia. We
need not elaborate on other arguments which are either to buttress
the   above­mentioned   points   or   if   we   may   say   so,   in   the   nature   of
another   shade   of   the   same   argument   with   reference   to   factual
aspects relevant for examining the same. The sum and substance of
the   argument   is   that   the   appellants   have   been   denuded   of   their
right   to   get   adjustments   in   the   same   manner   as   extended   to
projects   commissioned   in   the   same   control   period   and   despite   the
stipulation in  the third proviso  of  the Regulation 4 of the principal
Regulations.   Inasmuch   as,   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations
were notified on 12 th
  August, 2015, therefore, the rights accrued to
the   appellants   in   terms   of   Regulation   4   would   take   effect   from
commissioning   of   their   project   on   3 rd
  May,   2013   because   the
principal Regulations were still applicable and in force. Taking away
that fructified right, is impermissible in law. Further, the impugned
Amended   Regulations,   ex   facie,   discriminates   between   the   projects
commissioned   during   the   same   control   period   i.e.   second   control
period from 1 st
 April, 2013 till 31 st
 March, 2017, by singling out the
projects   commissioned   in FY 2013­14. It is not open to make such

12
classification   in   respect   of   projects   commissioned   during   the   same
control period. Further, there can be no two tariffs operating during
the   same   control  period.   In  that,   no   express   provision   to   prescribe
two sets of tariffs concerning the same control period is found in the
principal   Regulations   or   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations.
Therefore,   classification   sought   to   be   done   in   the   impugned
Amended Regulations, cannot be countenanced. 
7. Indeed,   the   respondents   have   vehemently   supported   the
impugned   decision   of   the   High   Court   and   would   contend   that   the
provisions engrafted in the impugned notification are manifestation
of the order passed by the Commission dated 4 th
 August, 2015. The
Commission   had   elaborately   analysed   all   aspects   of   the   matter
before passing the said order. In other words, the respondents have
drawn   support   from   the   analysis   done   by   the   Commission   in   the
suo  moto   proceedings initiated  by  it for  revision of norms (for  tariff
operation for   the second  control  period  commencing   from  1 st
  April,
2013). That order runs into over 100 typed pages and has analysed
the   necessity   of   revision   vis­à­vis   each   head   to   be   reckoned   for
determination   of   tariff.  The   appellants  had   participated  in   the  said
proceedings.   However,   the   stand   taken   by   the   appellants   did   not

13
commend   to   the   Commission,   as   can   be   discerned   from   the
discussion in the order passed by it on 4 th
 August, 2015. Further, it
was open to the appellants to approach the Commission by way of a
review if they had any reservation with regard to the view taken by
Commission in the said order. It was also open to the appellants to
file   appeal   against   the   said   order.   However,   without   resorting   to
such   remedies,   the   appellants   chose   to   file   writ   petition   and   have
raised   grounds   which   are   untenable   in   light   of   the   discussion
recorded by the Commission in its order dated 4 th
  August, 2015. It
is certainly not a case of hostile discrimination considering the fact
that   Commission   has   recorded   tangible   reasons   as   to   why   the
applicability   of   the   revised   regulations   was   required   to   be   made
prospective in respect of projects commissioned during FY 2013­14.
It is urged that the exercise of power  in framing regulations ­ be it
principal Regulations or impugned Amended Regulations ­ in terms
of   Section   61   read   with   Section   181   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003
permits   classification   on   the   basis   of   the   date   of   commissioning   of
the   project   during   the   relevant   period   and   which   may   inevitably
result   in   providing   for   two   sets   of   tariffs   during   the   same   control
period. It is submitted that even though the impugned judgment of

14
the   High   Court   is   brief,   the   conclusions   reached   therein   are
unexceptionable and therefore, this appeal ought to be dismissed. 
8. After perusing the impugned judgment, we have no hesitation
in   taking   the   view   that   the   High   Court   has   committed   manifest
error   or   so   to   speak,   failed   to   exercise   jurisdiction   vested   in   it   for
adjudicating the relevant issues raised by the appellants. For, there
is   hardly   any   intelligible   discussion   in   the   impugned   judgment   in
that regard. If we may say so, it is cryptic and cannot stand the test
of   judicial   scrutiny.   We   say   so   because,   up   to   paragraph   9   of   the
judgment   the   High   Court   has   only   reproduced   the   rival   stand.
Paragraph   11   refers   to   the   relevant   provisions.   Paragraph   12   is
mere   narration   of   some   facts   concerning   this   case.   Paragraph   13,
broadly   refers   to   the   purport   of   the   provisions   in   the   principal
Regulations   and   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations.   The
discussion   with   regard   to   the   merits   of   the   challenge,   can   be
discerned only from paragraph Nos.14 and 15 reproduced hitherto.
Paragraph   14   even   if   fairly   analysed,   merely   adverts   to   the
argument   of   discriminatory   application   of   regulations   qua   the
appellant company and proceeds to reject the same. No logic can be
deduced as to why the Court was persuaded to reject the argument

15
despite the multifaceted issues raised by the appellants. The second
sentence   in   the   said   paragraph   then   proceeds   to   record   that   the
control   period   may   be   from   FY   2013­14   onwards,   however,   the
impugned   Amended   Regulations   envisage   application   of   revised
norms   to   projects   commissioned   in   FY   2013­14   prospectively   from
the   date   of   notification   of   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations.   In
other   words,   the   High   Court   has   not   analysed   the   grounds   of
challenge   regarding   the   validity   of   the   impugned   Amended
Regulations   and   including   the   competency   to   frame   such   a
regulation,   appropriately.   Strikingly,   the   High   Court   then
straightaway   proceeds   to   examine   the   second   contention   raised   by
the   appellants   in   reference   to   the   third   proviso   in   the   principal
Regulations   providing   for   adjustments   as   per   revised   regulations.
The  Court  merely   noted  that  the  appellants failed to  point out any
prejudice   caused   to   them   because   of   exclusion   from   the   benefit
flowing from the principal Regulations. The appellants, on the other
hand,   have   invited   our   attention   to   the   specific   grounds   taken   by
the appellants in the writ petition and also noted in the order of the
Commission dated 4 th
  August, 2015 and additionally  articulated in
the   ground   No.   B   of   the   special   leave   petition,   giving   comparative
chart   indicating   substantial   disparity   regarding   the   norms

16
applicable as per principal Regulations and the impugned Amended
Regulations.   In   other   words,   the   argument   of   prejudice   was   raised
by the appellants to the detail but the High Court has failed to deal
with   the   same,   to   say   the   least   satisfactorily.   Similarly,   the   detail
arguments   regarding   the   validity   of   the   impugned   Amended
Regulations and the competency to frame such a regulation has not
been analysed by the High Court. 
9. Suffice   it   to   observe   that   the   discussion   in   two   paragraphs
(para   14   and   15),   to   say   the   least,   is   one   of   disposing   of   the   writ
petition   in   a   most   casual   and   cavalier   manner.   That   cannot   be
countenanced.   Having   said   this,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion
that it would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the High
Court for  fresh consideration  of the writ petition  on its own merits
in   accordance   with   law.   We   refrain   from   expressing   any   opinion
either   way   on   the   merits   of   the   controversy   or   the   grounds   of
challenge   regarding   the   impugned   Amended   Regulations.   In   other
words,   the   High   Court   must   consider   all   relevant   aspects   of   the
matter   agitated   by   the   appellants   and   deal   with   the   same
appropriately in accordance with law. 

17
10. For completion of the record, we must note the decision of the
Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   PTC   India   Ltd.   Vs.   Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through Secretary   1
,   which
has held that the challenge to the validity of the regulations can be
decided   only   in   judicial   review   proceedings   before   the   courts   and
not by way of appeal or review. The appellants having invoked such
a   remedy   before   the   High   Court,   all   contentions   available   to   the
appellants in that regard ought to have been adjudicated in proper
perspective.   We   agree   with   the   appellants   that   the   nature   of
elaborate   order   passed   by   the   Commission   on   4 th
  August,   2015,
which  culminated  with  the   framing   of  Amendment  Regulations   the
only   remedy   available   to   challenge   the   same   is   by   way   of   a   writ
petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.              
11. Accordingly,   this   appeal   is   allowed.   The   impugned   judgment
and   order   is   set   aside.   The   CWP   No.285337   of   2015   (O&M)   is
restored   to   the   file   of   the   High   Court   to   its   original   number,   for
being   considered   afresh   by   the   High   Court   on   its   own   merits   in
accordance   with   law.   All   pending   applications   are   disposed   of.   No
order as to costs. 
1  (2010) 4 SCC 603

18
      ……………………………..J
      (A.M. Khanwilkar)
      ……………………………..J
      (Ajay Rastogi)
New Delhi;
July 2, 2019.