M/s. Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Ltd. vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors on 15 September 2026

ORDER

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Review of common judgement dated 24th June, 2025 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 116 of 2023 & 177 of 2023 is sought by way of this Review Petition.

2. Both these appeals had been filed by the Review Petitioner before this Tribunal challenging the orders dated 11th June, 2022 and 29th August, 2022 passed by the 1st Respondent – Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in petition Nos. 9/TT/2021 and 583/MP/2020 respectively. By way of these impugned orders, the Central Commission had held the Review Petitioner, a solar park, liable to pay transmission charges for the delay in commissioning of solar power projects situated within the solar park.

3. In the common judgement under review dated 24th June, 2025, this Tribunal held both these appeals sans any merit and accordingly were dismissed.

4. We have heard Mr. Arijit Maitra, Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner, Ms. Swapna Seshadri, Learned Counsel for 2nd Respondent (PGCIL) and Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for 4th Respondent (CTUIL). We have also perused the written submissions filed by the Learned Counsels.

5. According to the Review Petitioner, the said judgement dated 24th June, 2025 of this Tribunal suffers from errors apparent on the face of record as :-

(a) This Tribunal has not considered the contention of the Review Petitioner that the Commission had not granted any hearing to it before passing the order dated 11th June, 2022 in petition No. 9/TT/2021; (b) this Tribunal has not followed its earlier decisions;

(c) this Tribunal has arrived at incorrect findings based on incorrect facts; (d) this Tribunal has ignored the fact that the undertaking dated 23rd November, 2015 given by the Review Petitioner was a conditional one; and (e) this Tribunal has erred in not adding the solar power generators as party to this appeal. Our Analysis

(a) This Tribunal has not considered the contention of the Review Petitioner that the Commission has not granted any hearing to it before passing the order dated 11th June, 2022 in petition No. 9/TT/2021; &

(e) This Tribunal has erred in not adding the solar power generators as party to this appeal:

6. It is true that one of the grounds of challenge to the impugned orders raised by the Review Petitioner in the appeal was that the order dated 11th June, 2022 suffers from judicial impropriety and has been passed in violation of natural justice for the reason that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Review Petitioner .

7. We may note that apart from the above ground of appeal, several other grounds had also been raised by the Appellant in the two appeals to assail the impugned orders dated 11th June, 2022 and 29th August, 2022. However, on 9th November, 2023, Learned Counsel for Review Petitioner/Appellant submitted before this Tribunal that the Appellant would confine its submissions in these appeals only to its claims of not being liable to pay transmission charges and any grievance, which it may have vis-à-vis the solar power generators, would be resolved through the process of dispute resolution as stipulated in their agreement and not claim against the solar power generators would be agitated in these appeals. It is on the basis of such submissions that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Review Petitioner the solar power generators (Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 116 of 2023 and Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in appeal No. 177 of 2023) were deleted from the array of Respondents as

sought by way of application Nos. 2275 of 2023 & 2276 of 2023. Thus, the Appellants/Review Petitioners themselves had confined the scope of the appeals to only one issue relating to their liability to pay transmission charges and for this reason neither were remaining issues/grounds raised in the two appeals argued by the Learned Counsels nor were considered by this Tribunal vide writing the judgement under review.

8. In view of the same, we find it intriguing to hear from the Review Petitioner that their ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 11th June, 2022 that the same has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, has not been considered and discussed in the judgement under review.

9. Similarly, once the Review Petitioner itself had sought deletion of solar power generators from the array of respondents in these two appeals, it cannot be heard to contend now in this Review Petition that this Tribunal committed any error in not impleading the solar power generators as party to the two appeals. The contentions of the Review Petitioner in this regard in this Review Petition are patently malafide, baseless and concocted. In view of such fictitious statements having been made to create a false ground for review of

judgement dated 24th June, 2025, the Review Petitioner deserved to be burdened with heavy cost.

(b) This Tribunal has not followed its earlier decisions :

10. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner that the judgement under review dated 24th June, 2025 is contrary to the law laid down by this Tribunal in its previous judgement dated 21st December, 2021 in Appeal No. 69 of 2021 of M/s Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. RERC & Ors. Thus, it is contended that the judgement under review suffers from a patent error which needs to be rectified.

11. In this regard, we find it necessary to refer paragraph Nos. 75 to 78 of the judgement under review. In paragraph No. 75, this Tribunal has clearly noted that the reliance of the Appellant upon the judgment in Appeal No. 69 of 2021 is misconceived as the regulatory provisions on the basis of which said judgement was rendered were different from the regulatory provisions which are applicable to the instant case. Thereafter, in paragraph Nos. 76 & 77, it has been explained as to why the said judgement in Appeal No. 69 of 2021 is not applicable to the factual matrix involved in the present appeal.

12. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Review Petitioner to contend that this Tribunal has not followed its previous decision and the judgement under review suffers from any error apparent on this ground.

(c) This Tribunal has arrived at incorrect findings based on incorrect facts :

13. During the submission on this aspect, Learned Counsel for Review Petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph No. 98 of the judgement under review which is extracted hereinbelow :- “98. The submission that the undertaking is void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for want of consideration, is misconceived. In public law contractual frameworks, consideration is not limited to pecuniary exchange but extends to benefits received in kind or through legal facilitation. In this case, SUCRL has drawn the power to apply for and secure connectivity for 500 MW of capacity, avoiding the regulatory complexity and delays that would otherwise arise if each generator were to apply

independently. That facilitation itself constitutes a valid legal consideration.” (Emphasis supplied)

14. Learned Counsel would argue that this Tribunal has incorrectly noted in the said paragraph that the Appellant has drawn power to apply for and to secure connectivity for 500MW capacity whereas the Appellant has not drawn any power rather its evacuation system was connected to ISTS. It is submitted that since there is neither any auxiliary consumption nor start up power being used by the Appellant, the question of the Appellant drawing any power does not arise in the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel would argue that since the judgement under review is based upon such incorrect facts, the same deserved to be reviewed.

15. We are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the Review Petitioner as the same are based upon absolutely incorrect interpretation of the contents of paragraph No. 98 which has been reproduced herein above. By the expression “SUCRL has drawn the power to apply for and secure connectivity”, this Tribunal did not mean the drawing of electricity from the generation units in the solar park. What this Tribunal meant was that the Appellant had

empowered itself to apply for and secure connectivity for 500 MW of capacity on behalf of the solar power generators in the solar park thereby avoiding the regulatory complexity and delays that would otherwise have been caused if each generator was to apply for connectivity independently. Therefore, this ground of review also is completely devoid of any merit.

(d) This Tribunal has ignored the fact that the undertaking dated 23rd November, 2015 given by the Review Petitioner was a conditional one:

16. Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner would argue that this Tribunal, while passing the judgement under review upon the Appellant’s undertaking dated 23rd November, 2015 to bear all liabilities related to connectivity/LTA has lost sight of the fact that the undertaking was conditional as the same was given by the Appellant “in accordance with CERC Regulations/orders” which fact has not been considered by this Tribunal. According to the Learned Counsel, this constituted an error apparent on the face of record in the judgement under review and, therefore, needs to be rectified in this Review Petition.

17. On this aspect, we find it apposite to refer to paragraph Nos. 63 to 65 of the judgement under review which are extracted hereinbelow:- “63. In furtherance of this role, SUCRL furnished an undertaking on 23.11.2015 to bear “all liabilities related to connectivity/LTA in accordance with CERC Regulations/orders on behalf of the Solar Power Generators to be set up in the above Solar Park.” This undertaking, SUCRL contends, was simply a pre-condition for the grant of Connectivity and LTA, without import of ongoing financial liability. The relevant extract of the undertaking given by SUCRL is quoted as under: “The company "Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Limited" as Solar Power Park Developer for 500 MW Solar Park, undertakes to bear all liabilities related to connectivity /LTA in accordance with CERC Regulations/ orders on behalf of the Solar power generators to be set up in the above Solar park.”

64. From the above, it is beyond any doubt that all the liabilities falling upon the Solar Power Generators in

accordance with CERC Regulations or Orders shall be borne by the SUCRL.

65. Even if it is assumed that the SUCRL is an agent of the Solar Power Generators, it cannot now be argued that it has no liability for the payment of charges on behalf of the Solar Power Generators, once it has taken the responsibility under the contractual agreements signed by it to the payees (PGCIL/CTUIL), inter alia, under the regulatory provisions for such charges.

18. Thus, this Tribunal found on the basis of the rival submissions of the parties that the Appellant has given a binding undertaking on behalf of all solar power developers in its solar park to bear all the liabilities related to connectivity/LTA on behalf of these solar power generators. It appears that for this very reason, the Appellant had sought deletion of the solar power generators from the array of respondents in these two appeals which wall allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 9th November, 2023. It is to be noted that the contention of the Appellant that such undertaking was conditional, has been rejected by this Tribunal upon observing that the

undertaking was given with open eyes, voluntarily and without any coercion or duress upon understanding the regulatory provisions. It has also been noted in paragraph No. 97 that an undertaking given to regulatory authorities for grant of approvals is binding and enforceable within the regulatory framework of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, we are unable to find any error apparent on the face of record in the judgement under review on this ground also.

19. To conclude, we may note that upon consideration of all the relevant contractual provisions as well as statutory provisions and Regulations, this Tribunal has, in the judgement under review, come to specific findings on the issues raised in this Review Petition, which can not be altered in the review proceedings. Well reasoned and well considered judgement, even though erroneous, does not fall within the ambit of review. There is a clear distinction between a judgement suffering from error patent on the face of record and erroneous judgement. Review Petition is maintainable only on the former case whereas in the latter case the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to assail the order/judgement by way of appeal in the higher forum/Court.

20. Manifestly, by way of the instant review petition, the petitioner is actually seeking a relook of the judgment under review in the hope to discover any flaw or fault in the same, which is not permissible in law. The review petition manifestly appears to be appeal in disguise and thus, does not fall within the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

21. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review dated 24th June, 2025 and has failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions on this aspect.

22. The review petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of September, 2026.

(Ajay Talegaonkar)

(Virender Bhat)

Technical Member (Electricity)

Judicial Member

✓

REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

js