APTEL upholds that Delay in Securing Long-Term Access (LTA) is not a valid Force Majeure and therefore, Scheduled Delivery Date under PPA cannot be unilaterally extended

In a judgment dated 03.07.2026 in Appeal No.183 of 2020, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Tribunal) has dismissed the appeal filed by Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited (MCCPL), thereby upholding the Order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission). The Appellate Tribunal has ruled in favour of the Rajasthan Discoms — Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Rajasthan Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (RUVNL), rejecting MCCPL’s claim that the Scheduled Delivery Date (SDD) of 30.11.2016 fixed under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) stood revised to 01.04.2017, and that the first contract year for tariff purposes ought to be reckoned from the later date.

1. Delay of Two Years in seeking Long-Term Access cannot be termed as Force Majeure

MCCPL had attributed its inability to supply the full Aggregate Contracted Capacity of 250 MW by the SDD on the non-operationalization of Long-Term Access (LTA)/Medium-Term Open Access (MTOA), and sought to characterise this as a Force Majeure event under the PPA. The Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention. It noted that after submitting a LTA revision request, MCCPL “just adopted a wait and watch approach” and neither sent any reminder to PGCIL/CTU nor made any other effort to ensure that LTA for the full 250 MW was granted expeditiously, following up only on 13.08.2015, after its plant had already achieved Commercial Operation Date. The fresh LTA application, mandated because the change in target region exceeded 100 MW under the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, was filed over two years after the PPA was signed.

The Appellate Tribunal found no merit in MCCPL’s plea that this delay was attributable to “legal uncertainty and procedural ambiguity” on account of the methodology for calculating relinquishement charges pending before the Central Commission. It held that the fifth proviso to Regulation 12(1) of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009 “clearly provided that a fresh LTA application would be required” for a change exceeding 100 MW or a change of region, and the order on relinquishement charges passed by the Central Commission “only elaborates and explains” what the proviso already provided, without effecting any change in the regulatory position. Since Force Majeure grants relief only where the triggering event “could not have been avoided if the affected party had taken reasonable care or complied with prudent utility practices,” the Appellate Tribunal held that MCCPL “neither took reasonable care nor acted prudently” in pursuing its LTA request.

2. Commencement of supply “Upto” Aggregate Contracted Capacity does not require the entire quantum of electricity flowing

MCCPL’s case was that the SDD stood fulfilled only when the entire 250 MW commenced flowing, and that part supply of 45 MW alone on 30.11.2016 could not amount to commencement of supply under the PPA. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed, construing Article 4.1.1 and Article 4.2.1(b) together. It held that the expression “upto the Aggregated Contracted Capacity” indicates that “the seller may commence supply of power of any quantum, the maximum limit being the aggregated contracted capacity,” and that it was “not mandatory for the power generator i.e. the seller to supply the entire aggregated contracted capacity of power by the Scheduled Delivery Date i.e. 30.11.2016 in order to constitute commencement of supply of power.”

The Apellate Tribunal noted that MCCPL had itself served the advance preliminary notice (26.09.2016) and final written notice (27.10.2016) under Article 4.1.2 for commencement of supply “w.e.f 30.11.2016 i.e scheduled delivery date,” raised monthly invoices at the tariff payable for the first contract year, which were duly paid, and never conveyed to the Discoms that the SDD should be treated as suspended, split into phases, or held in abeyance pending availability of transmission capacity for the balance 205 MW. On this basis, the AppellateTribunal held that the supply of 45 MW from 30.11.2016 itself constituted “commencement of supply” under Article 4.1.1, and that the first Contract Year commenced from that date.

3. No Force Majeure event affected CTU, LTA was, in Fact, Operationalized ahead of Schedule

The Appellate Tribunal also rejected MCCPL’s reliance on Article 9.2.2, which deems a Force Majeure event affecting CTU/STU to be a Force Majeure event affecting the Seller. It observed that the 23rd Meeting of WR Constituents had recorded that the Champa-Kurukshetra HVDC Phase-I and Phase-II lines, and the Jabalpur-Orai line, were expected to be commissioned only in November 2016/March 2018 and April 2018 respectively, yet MCCPL’s LTA was in fact operationalized on 31.03.2017, “almost one year earlier” than the timeline earlier communicated by PGCIL. In these circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal held, “it cannot be said that there was any force majeure event affecting the PGCIL/CTU for providing transmission access to the appellant.”

4. Deliberate delay in Furnishing the Letter of Credit

The Appellate Tribunal found that even after the Champa-Kurukshetra line achieved Commercial Operation on 24.03.2017 and PGCIL/CTU called upon MCCPL on the same date to furnish a Letter of Credit (LC), MCCPL offered “no justification” for the delay in submitting the LC until 31.03.2017, resulting in commencement of the balance 205 MW supply only from 01.04.2017. The Appellate Tribunal held that this appeared to be a deliberate delay with an “ulterior motive,” observing that had supply commenced on any date between 24.03.2017 and 01.04.2017, the first contract year “would have been merely of a few days,” which MCCPL avoided so as to secure the higher first-contract-year tariff of Rs.1.633/kWh (as against Rs.1.558/kWh for the second Contract Year) for a full twelve-month period. The Appellate Tribunal termed such conduct “not acceptable.”

Conclusion

Holding that neither the delay in operationalization of LTA nor the timing of supply of the balance 205 MW was covered by Force Majeure under the PPA, and that commencement of supply of 45 MW on 30.11.2016 itself marked the beginning of the first contract year, the Appellate Tribunal answered both issues framed for its consideration against MCCPL. Finding no error or infirmity in the Impugned Order, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.183 of 2020, reaffirming that Scheduled Delivery Dates fixed under a PPA cannot be unilaterally shifted by a generator based on its own commercial convenience, and that claims of Force Majeure must be tested strictly against the diligence or lack thereof shown by the party invoking it.

Judgment Link

APTEL directs the Central Commission to exercise Power to Relax in relation O&M Norms for Sole North-Eastern Transmission Licensee

In a judgment dated 08.07.2026, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“Appellate Tribunal”) has ruled in favour of North East Transmission Company Limited (“NETCL”), setting aside the Order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Central Commission”) in Petition No. 191/MP/2019, whereby the Central Commission had declined to exercise its power to relax the normative Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) expenses prescribed under the Tariff Regulations, 2014.

By allowing Appeal No. 296 of 2021, the Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Central Commission with a specific direction to exercise its power to relax under Regulation 54 of the Tariff Regulations, 2014, for the limited purpose of working out the O&M charges for NETCL’s transmission assets for the control period 2014-19.

Brief Background

NETCL, a single-project transmission licensee engaged in evacuating power from the 2 x 363.3 MW Palatana Gas Based Power Project of ONGC Tripura Power Company Limited across five transmission assets in the North-Eastern Region, had relied on the Central Commission’s ownearlier order dated 16.04.2019, wherein the Central Commission had observed that NETCL, being a single asset company operating in the North-Eastern Region, “required consideration distinct from transmission licensees having multiple assets” and had granted liberty to file a fresh petition. NETCL contended that the Impugned Order, passed pursuant to that very liberty, contradicted the Central Commission’s earlier observation.

The Appellate Tribunal in the Appeal has proceeded to decide the issue on merits rather than resting its decision on the earlier order passed by the Central Commission alone.

1. Pan-India Normative Benchmark cannot be considered for Higher O&M costs of the North-East

NETCL demonstrated, relying on POWERGRID’s region-wise O&M data for 2014-15 drawn from the Statement of Reasons to the Tariff Regulations, 2014, that the North-Eastern Regionconstituting merely 3.25% of POWERGRID’s pan-India network of over 1,53,635 circuit kilometres incurred O&M costs of Rs. 0.75 lakh per circuit kilometre, which is 127% higher than the Western Region, 32% higher than the Northern Region and 79% higher than the Southern Region. It was NETCL’s case that when such costs are aggregated at the national level to derive a single normative benchmark of Rs. 0.403 lakh per circuit kilometre, the distinctly higher costs of the North-East get diluted within the national average, even though NETCL operates entirely within that region.

The Appellate Tribunal held that for a transmission licensee operating on a pan-India basis, aberrations in regional O&M costs can be mitigated when evaluated at the company level, but “the same mitigation is not feasible for a licensee whose operations are confined solely to the North Eastern Region, such as the Appellant”. The Appellate Tribunal also took note of NETCL’s submission that the rates independently determined for State Commission-regulated utilities operating under identical conditions in the region Rs. 0.85 lakh per circuit kilometre for AEGCL (Assam) and Rs. 1.09 lakh per circuit kilometre for MEPTCL (Meghalaya) were approximately twice the normative rate applied to NETCL.

2. Finding on Non-Submission of Data

The Impugned Order had recorded that NETCL“failed to submit data regarding O&M expenses while the Central Commission was engaged in formulating the norms for the control period 2019-24”. NETCL disputed this finding, pointing out that it had, in fact, submitted detailed operational and financial data in response to the Central Commission’s Public Notice dated 10.11.2017 inviting stakeholder comments on the Draft Tariff Regulations, 2019.

On scrutiny of the record, the Appellate Tribunal found substance in NETCL’s contention and held that the observation in the Impugned Order that no data was submitted by NETCL for finalising the O&M norms for the control period 2019-24 is contrary to the record and cannot be sustained, and accordingly set aside the Central Commission’s finding on this aspect.

3. Subsequent recognition of the North-East’s Operational challenges in the Central Commission Tariff Regulations

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Central Commission has taken cognizance of the difficulties faced by licensees operating in the North-Eastern and hilly regions. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Tariff Regulations, 2024 records that “the actual expenses incurred in the NER region are higher than compared to other regions” on account of increased logistic, erection, labour and transportation costs, and proposes a multiplication factor of 1.5 to the O&M expenses for licensees whose transmission assets are located solely in the North-Eastern Region, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, a dispensation since incorporated as a proviso to Regulation 36(3) of the Tariff Regulations, 2024.

The Appellate Tribunal directed that while working out the O&M charges for NETCL on remand, the Central Commission shall also take into account this special dispensation accorded in the subsequent regulations for hilly and similarly placed licensees in the North-Eastern Region.

4. Exceptional circumstances justify exercise of the Power to Relax under the Tariff Regulations

The Appellate Tribunal held that Regulation 54 of the Tariff Regulations, 2014 confers on the Central Commission the power to relax any provision of the Regulations in exceptional circumstances, to be exercised not lightly or routinely, but where the factual matrix discloses circumstances of such peculiar nature that strict adherence to the regulatory norm would result in manifest hardship or inequity. Finding that NETCL’s operations are confined exclusively to the North-Eastern Region, characterised by hilly terrain, difficult accessibility and operational challenges not ordinarily encountered elsewhere, the Appellate Tribunal held that these constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Regulation 54, and that “to insist upon a rigid application of the normative O&M charges in such a situation would be inequitable and contrary to the statutory mandate of ensuring reasonable recovery of costs”.

Accordingly, the Impugned Order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Central Commission with a direction to exercise its power to relax under Regulation 54 for working out NETCL’s O&M charges for the control period 2014-19, subject to a prudence check ensuring that only expenditure which is demonstrably necessary and reasonable is factored into the determination.

The judgment reaffirms that normative benchmarks derived on a pan-India basis cannot be mechanically applied to licensees whose operations are confined to regions with demonstrably higher operating costs, and underscores the availability of the power to relax as a corrective mechanism for such licensees operating under peculiar geographical and operational constraints.

Judgement Link

APTEL Reaffirms Statutory Primacy: Relinquishment Charges Upheld Despite Force Majeure

The dispute centred around the grant of Long-Term Access (‘LTA’) and the execution of a Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (‘BPTA’) between Aryan Renewable Energy Private Limited (‘Aryan Renewable’) and Central Transmission Utility (‘CTU’) for evacuation of power from Aryan Renewable’s proposed 1200 MW thermal power project at Amelia, Madhya Pradesh.

Background

Aryan Renewable proposed to set up a 1200 MW thermal power project in Madhya Pradesh and was granted LTA for the evacuation of power through the inter-State transmission system. Pursuant to the grant of LTA, a BPTA was executed, and the Appellant furnished a bank guarantee towards its transmission obligations.

Subsequently, the Central Water Commission declined to grant the No-Objection Certificate for water drawal, rendering the project non-implementable. Aryan Renewable contended that this constituted a force majeure event and that no unit of the generating station ever achieved commercial operation.

Thereafter, the bank guarantee submitted by Aryan Renewable were invoked, and the Central Electricity Regulation Commission (‘CERC’), vide the Impugned Order, held that Aryan Renewable remained liable to pay transmission and relinquishment charges under Regulation 18 of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009. Aggrieved, Aryan Renewable preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

Issues Framed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal

1. Whether Regulation 18 of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009 applies to a “zero-day failure” case, where LTA was never availed due to Force Majeure?
2. Whether binding precedent by this Hon’ble Tribunal exists on the above
3. Whether independently of precedent, the text of Regulation 18 contains a casus omissus regarding zero-use scenarios due to force majeure events, which is governed exclusively by the BPTA
4. Whether Force Majeure under the BPTA overrides the statutory obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18?

Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Regulation 18 to “zero-day failure” 

1(a): Whether binding precedent exists

Aryan Renewable’s case primarily rests on Brahmani Thermal Power Private Limited v. CERC & Ors. passed by the Appellate Tribunal [Judgement dated 20.03.2025], where Regulation 18 was interpreted as—

(i) it applies solely to voluntary relinquishment of LTA “out of its wish”, having “no application” to compulsory exits due to unforeseeable force majeure events beyond control; 

(ii) it presupposes actual stranded transmission capacity from such relinquishment, which is absent if lines are not commissioned or are utilised by others; and 

(iii) LTA granted to generators activates only post-commercial operation, so no transmission charges liability arises where force majeure prevents project establishment altogether.

Aryan Renewable also relied on PEL Power Ltd. v. CERC and Himachal Sorang Power Pvt. Ltd. v. CERC, arguing that these decisions collectively constitute binding precedent excluding ‘zero-use’ cases from the scope of Regulation 18. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this submission. It noted that the judgments relied upon did not consider the full statutory framework of the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, particularly the interrelationship between Regulations 14, 15 and 18. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the Brahmanijudgment impermissibly read additional words into Regulation 18 by restricting its application to voluntary relinquishment alone, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation. The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal reiterated that a judgment is binding only for what it actually decides, and observations made without consideration of relevant statutory provisions do not qualify. 

1(b): Whether the text of Regulation 18 contains a casus omissus

Independently, Aryan Renewable contended that Regulation 18 uses the phrase “have availed access rights” in both its categories, implying the provision applies only where access has been operationalised, and that a zero-use case therefore, falls outside its scope as a casus omissus.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention. Through a harmonised reading of the definitions of ‘LTA’ and “long-term customer” under the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that the right to use the inter-State transmission system is conferred upon grant of LTA by the CTU, which is thereafter formalised through execution of the BPTA under Regulation 15. Regulation 14 was construed to distinguish between the grant of access and the date from which such access becomes operational.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that where access is relinquished after grant but before commissioning, the period of utilisation is necessarily zero years, which squarely falls within Regulation 18(1)(b), applicable to customers who have not availed access rights for at least twelve years. Consequently, the zero-day failure scenario is not an omitted case under the Regulations, and the plea of casus omissus was found to be without merit.

2. Whether Force Majeure under the BPTA overrides the statutory obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18

Aryan Renewable argued that Clause of the BPTA dealing with force majeure operates as an overriding provision absolving it from all liabilities, including relinquishment charges. TheHon’ble Appellate Tribunal rejected this submission by emphasising the primacy of statutory regulations over contractual arrangements.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. CERC to reiterate that regulations framed under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003, have the force of subordinate legislation and override contractual provisions.

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal further held that Clause of the BPTA merely exempts parties from claims for loss or damage arising from force majeure and does not extend to statutory transmission or relinquishment charges, which form part of a pooled, non-discriminatory transmission framework. Transmission charges are not payable to CTU alone but are shared among Designated ISTS Customers under the Sharing Regulations, and therefore cannot be characterised as contractual damages.

In the absence of a force majeure exception in Regulation 18 itself, and given the statutory treatment of the Connectivity Regulations, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal concluded that Clauses of the BPTA cannot override the obligation to pay relinquishment charges under Regulation 18(1)(b). The appeal was therefore, dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal judgment placed an emphasis on the statutory nature of the Connectivity Regulations 2009, making it clear that they were not to be superseded by the BPTA, and that there was no cassus omissus in Regulation 18 underlining the importance of construing the same in a harmonious matter.

Judgment Link

Hon’ble Supreme Court Upholds APTEL’s Restitution Findings In The Vemagiri Transmission Dispute; Dismisses REC’s Challenge

Introduction

On 10.10.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 11011–11013 of 2025 filed by REC Power Development and Consultancy Limited (REC), thereby affirming the judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

The appeals concerned long-standing disputes surrounding the Vemagiri Transmission Project, developed under the Tariff-Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) framework in terms of the Guidelines dated 17.04.2006. Central to the matter were issues of restitution, regulatory jurisdiction, and the extent to which a Bid Process Coordinator (BPC) could be held accountable for actions taken during the execution of the TBCB process.

R Associates represented Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (POWERGRID), the successful bidder for the transmission project, whose acquisition costs and subsequent expenses were under challenge.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, affirming APTEL’s reasoning, declined to interfere with the detailed factual and legal findings, recognising that principles of fairness and restitution governed the dispute.

Background

The Vemagiri Transmission Project was initiated to evacuate power from the gas-based generation projects of Spectrum and Samalkot under a TBCB framework.

In 2012, REC, acting as BPC, insisted that POWERGRID proceed with acquisition of the Special Purpose Vehicle—Vemagiri Transmission System Limited (VTSL), despite the Ministry of Power’s notifications dated 14.03.2012 and 19.03.2012 indicating non-availability of domestic gas for the concerned generators.

Spectrum and Samalkot themselves had, in letters dated 30.03.2012 and 06.04.2012, sought cancellation or deferment of the Transmission Service Agreement (TSA). REC nevertheless required POWERGRID to acquire VTSL and pay the acquisition price of Rs. 18.27 crores.

Given this sequence, POWERGRID later sought restitution before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), leading to a series of proceedings culminating in APTEL’s judgment directing adjustment of costs and holding REC accountable for failing to defer acquisition despite clear grounds to do so.

APTEL held that:

1. Spectrum and Samalkot were not liable for acquisition or operational costs;
2. POWERGRID could not be saddled with costs it incurred under compelling circumstances;
3. CERC must adjust these costs either by recovering the amount from REC or through other regulatory mechanisms.

REC challenged these findings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Submission Made by the Parties

REC contended as under:

• CERC lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving BPC, as REC was only a pro forma party to the original proceedings.
• The acquisition was undertaken voluntarily by POWERGRID, despite indications regarding gas non-availability, and therefore no restitution could be claimed.
• APTEL erred in fastening liability upon REC when it was not a party to the TSA and had no role after initiating the bidding process.

POWERGRID’s key submissions were as under:

• REC, as BPC, failed in its statutory role:
  Under Clause 2.4(e) of the Request for Proposal (RfP), REC had the express power to defer acquisition on account of material developments. Despite receiving letters from Spectrum and Ministry notifications regarding non-availability of gas, REC insisted on strict adherence to timelines and mandated payment of acquisition price.
• POWERGRID acted without fault and under compelling circumstances:
  POWERGRID highlighted that non-compliance would have resulted in encashment of its bid bond under Clause 2.7 of the RfP. As the selected bidder, POWERGRID had no discretion other than to fulfil bid terms.
  
• Certain Concurrent findings of CERC and APTEL:
  Both authorities concurrently upheld that the acquisition price to be paid to POWERGRID is required to be reimbursed.
  
• CERC had jurisdiction over disputes involving a transmission licensee and BPC:
  Relying on Section 79(1)(c) and (f) of the Act, POWERGRID submitted that disputes “in connection with” inter-State transmission, including those arising during bidding, acquisition, and TSA implementation, fall squarely within the Central Commission’s jurisdiction. Reference was also made to the wide interpretation of regulatory powers recognised in K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Energy Watchdog v. CERC.
• Restitution was the only equitable outcome:
  POWERGRID urged that the economic position preceding compelled acquisition must be restored, especially when the project could not proceed due to reasons clearly beyond its control.

Analysis and Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing all parties, declined to interfere with APTEL’s detailed factual findings and legal reasoning, observing that “…no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, on principles of fairness as well as restitution.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thereby affirmed:

• the correctness of APTEL’s restitution-based approach;
• the concurrent findings of CERC and APTEL that the concurrently upheld that the acquisition price to be paid to POWERGRID is required to be reimbursed.
• the power of CERC to adjudicate disputes involving BPCs when connected to inter-State transmission; and
• the accountability of the Bid Process Coordinator when its actions materially contribute to avoidable economic loss.
• By dismissing REC’s appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has brought finality to more than a decade of litigation stemming from the aborted Vemagiri Transmission System. The decision reinforces jurisprudence on BPC obligations, regulatory oversight under Section 79, and the availability of restitutionary remedies within the TBCB framework.

Prepared By:
Reeha Singh

Represented by:
Shubham Arya, Poorva Saigal, Reeha Singh and Shirin Gupta

Read the order in detail: