APTEL Tightens the Screws on Public Interest Litigation: Strict Locus Standi Now Mandatory in Electricity Matters

I. Introduction

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) reaffirmed in its April 8, 2025 judgment that public interest organizations must comply with stringent statutory locus standi criteria under the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Act”) when challenging regulatory orders. Mere altruistic intent does not equate to legal standing.

This analysis assesses APTEL’s ruling—its legal reasoning, statutory underpinnings, and broader implications for public-interest litigation in the power sector.

II. Statutory & Regulatory Framework

1. Section 2(15) defines “consumer” as any person supplied electricity for his own use.
   
2. Section 111 permits appeals before APTEL by “any person aggrieved” by orders of Appropriate Commissions.
   
3. The CERC/State ERC Conduct of Business Regulations often allow consumer representation but require formal legal standing, not just goodwill.
   

Section 111’s qualifier—“aggrieved”—imposes both legal injury and direct effect requirements.

III. Facts: Review by Surat Citizens Council Trust

• APTEL had earlier dismissed Appeal No 341 of 2017, where the Surat Citizens Council Trust challenged tariff orders by GERC, alleging broad public harm.
  
• The Trust was not a direct consumer and lacked mandates in its object clause to represent tariff payers.
  
• The Trust periodically obtained RTI information and audit data, but did not hold consumer status.
  

It approached APTEL via a review petition, invoking public interest and systemic grievances—a plea the Tribunal firmly rejected.

IV. APTEL’s Legal Findings

1. Strict Statutory Standing: Under Section 2(15), absence of consumer status meant the Trust was not “aggrieved” under Section 111.
   
2. No Representative Authority: Its governing documents included no mandate to represent affected consumers.
   
3. No Direct Injury: Lacked evidence showing tariff harm, either personal or through members.
   
4. Public Interest Alone Insufficient: Motivations, however noble, cannot replace statutory prerequisites.
   
5. Inadmissible Review Relief: Review petitions cannot re-litigate merits beyond correcting “error apparent on face.” The Trust’s new submissions were too late and not ground for review.

V. Judicial Reasoning: Public Interest vs. Legal Standing

APTEL drew a clear distinction between:

• Abstract or derivative harm, which is inadmissible; and
  
• Concrete, direct legal injury, which satisfies locus standi.
  

The Tribunal cited precedent from both electricity law and general administrative law to clarify that mere public spiritedness cannot override statutory architecture. In particular, it relied on the legal position in:

• Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671 – wherein the Supreme Court rejected “busybody” litigants lacking direct grievance.
  
• PTC India Ltd. v. CERC, (2010) 4 SCC 603 – which defined the scope of regulatory jurisdiction and clarified statutory appellate paths under the Electricity Act.
  

The ruling squarely rejected the notion that public interest is a standalone ground for approaching APTEL without complying with the substantive requirements of the Act.

VI. Procedural Takeaways

The Tribunal provided guidance for public interest groups wishing to approach electricity tribunals:

1. Object Clause Alignment: The organization’s charter must show a clear mandate to represent electricity consumers or affected stakeholders.
   
2. Proof of Injury or Representation: Entities must demonstrate:
   • A direct relationship to the impugned order; or
     
   • Authorization from identified consumer groups.
3. Participatory Prerequisite: Participation in the original regulatory proceedings before the SERC or CERC is essential. Post-facto intervention is rarely permitted.
   
4. No Collateral Appeals: Entities cannot repackage generalized grievances to reopen decisions already adjudicated.
   

This procedural discipline preserves the limited judicial bandwidth of APTEL for truly aggrieved persons, ensuring that regulatory stability is not undermined by unvetted interventions.

VII. Policy Context: Rise in NGO and Trust Interventions

In recent years, several NGOs, citizen forums, and local trusts have begun using the Electricity Act’s appeal provisions to challenge tariff orders, PPAs, and procurement guidelines—often citing environmental or public affordability concerns.

While such interventions can add valuable perspective, APTEL’s ruling underscores that such efforts must be institutionally disciplined. Courts and tribunals cannot act as policy forums or oversight bodies unless approached by legally competent persons or groups.

VIII. Impact on Public Interest Litigation in the Power Sector

The APTEL judgment will likely curb indiscriminate filing of appeals and reviews by public interest organizations that do not meet the minimum statutory thresholds. Key implications include:

a) Enhanced Gatekeeping

Electricity sector regulators and tribunals will adopt a stricter filter while examining the maintainability of petitions filed in the name of public interest. This ensures judicial economy, reduces backlog, and preserves the integrity of sectoral adjudication.

b) Higher Compliance Burden on NGOs

Organizations seeking to represent consumer interests in tariff matters must now align their incorporation documents, obtain mandates from affected groups, and demonstrate direct or representative standing. Casual or peripheral involvement will no longer suffice.

c) Clarity on Review Jurisdiction

The judgment also clarifies the limited scope of review under APTEL’s procedural rules. Review petitions are not a substitute for appeal, and any attempt to reopen findings without pointing to an evident error or omission will be summarily dismissed.

d) Sectoral Certainty

The ruling stabilizes regulatory processes in the electricity sector by preventing ad hoc disruption of commission decisions via loosely framed PIL-type reviews. This is especially important in tariff fixation and grid planning, where long-term investments depend on regulatory predictability.

IX. Comparative Jurisprudence

The Tribunal’s approach aligns with the principles upheld in:

• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 – holding that “public interest litigation is not a license for irresponsible litigation”.
  
• Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349 – where the Supreme Court cautioned against abuse of PIL to serve personal or political ends.
  

The power sector’s regulatory adjudication thus continues to follow the broader judicial movement toward structured, merit-based public litigation, discouraging speculative or ideologically motivated filings.

Conclusion

The April 2025 decision of APTEL in the Surat Citizens Council Trust matter marks a pivotal clarification in the domain of regulatory litigation. While it does not exclude public interest entities altogether, it mandates rigorous compliance with statutory locus standi.

This ruling preserves the integrity of the appellate framework under the Electricity Act, 2003 by ensuring that only persons with direct legal grievance or properly authorized representation may invoke appellate jurisdiction. In doing so, APTEL has drawn a necessary and constitutionally valid line between participatory governance and judicial intervention.

Going forward, electricity regulatory litigation in India will need to reflect structured advocacy, institutional mandate, and demonstrable harm—lest it be struck down at the threshold.

APTEL – Surat Citizens Council Trust (Review Petition No. 1 of 2025 in Appeal No. 341 of 2017) – https://aptel.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/RP%201%20of%202025%20.pdf?

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (1975) – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1749406/

Read More

Supreme Court rules in favour of the Powergrid Corporation of India Limited reinforcing regulatory role of the Central Commission Under Electricity Act, 2003

The Supreme Court today (May 15) ruled that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) is not precluded from exercising its functions under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003  in the absence of regulations framed under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 

The Judgment arises out of the SLPs filed by Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) against the Order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh admitting the writ petitions filed by the Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited (MPPTCL). 

MPPTCL had filed the Writ Petition before the High Court on the ground that the CERC had exercised powers  beyond its jurisdiction as per the regulations notified under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003 while passing the orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 in Petition No. 311/TT/2018 and Petition No. 266/TT/2018 filed by PGCIL seeking transmission tariff for its assets.   

While setting aside the judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court answered the following questions in favour of PGCIL:

i. Whether the CERC, while exercising its functions under Section 79(1) of   the Act, 2003, is circumscribed by statutory regulations enacted under   Section 178 of the Act, 2003?  

ii. Whether the CERC exercises regulatory or adjudicatory functions under   Section 79 of the Act, 2003? In other words, what is the scope of the CERC’s power to regulate inter-state transmission of electricity and determine tariff for the same under clauses (c) and (d) of Section 79(1)?

iii. Whether the grant of compensation by the CERC for the delay vide the orders dated 21.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 respectively, is a regulatory or adjudicatory function and to what extent are the principles of natural justice applicable to the exercise of such functions? 

iv. Whether the High Court was justified in admitting the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 of the CERC when there existed an alternative remedy under Section 111 of   the Act, 2003?  

While dealing with the above questions, the Supreme Court has held as under:

a. CERC functions as both – decision-making and regulation-making authority under Section 79 and 178 of the Act, 2003 respectively.

b. While noting the Constitution Bench judgment in PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603, the Supreme Court has held that the Regulations under Section 178 has the effect of interfering with and overriding contractual relationships between the regulated entities, however, on the other hand the orders under Section 79 have to be confined to the existing statutory regulations and do not have the effect of altering the terms of contract between the specific parties before the CERC

c. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PTC and Energy Watchdog v. CERC reported in (2017) 14 SCC 80, it has been held that the absence of a regulation under Section 178 does not preclude the CERC from exercising its powers under Section 79(1) to make specific regulations or pass orders between the parties before it.

d. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that there is no contractual clause between the parties for establishing the risks of delay in commissioning of a transmission asset. There is also no uniform settled position as regards the liability of transmission charges payable before a particular transmission element is put in operation, in the form of regulations under Section 178. These circumstances, considered together with the prohibition on imposing liability of delayed payments on beneficiaries, leave a regulatory gap. The Supreme Court then proceeded to hold that in light of the dictum in the case of Energy Watchdog case, in the situation of an absence in Regulation, Guidelines or Contractual clauses, the Act, 2003 mandates that the CERC may strike a judicious balance keeping in mind commercial principles and consumers interest in exercise of its general regulatory powers under Section 79.

e. The Supreme Court further held that sources of power for enactment of a regulation under Section 178 and regulatory order under Section 79(1) are different. The   former emanates from the power of delegated legislation whereas the latter is an ad hoc power which is limited to the specific parties and situation in context of which the order is given. Since the regulatory powers under Section 79(1)  are of an ad hoc nature and are not of general application, the orders thereunder  are made appealable under Section 111.   

In light of the above findings, the Supreme Court held that CERC is empowered to order for imposition of transmission charges on the party to whom delay is attributable and there was no occasion for High Court to admit the Writ Petitions and CERC . The Supreme Court has concluded that APTEL is the appropriate authority to look into the merits of the matter should MPPTCL choose to prefer an appeal before APTEL under Section 111 of the Act, 2003.

The copy of the judgment has been directed to be circulated to all High Courts.  

Read Judgement

Read More

Supreme Court Upholds State Regulatory Oversight Over Inter-State Power Procurement Affecting Local Grid

The Supreme Court affirms that State Commissions can regulate inter-state electricity procurement affecting local grids. A landmark interpretation under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Read More