Adani Power Limited & Anr vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors on 22 July 2026

1. Adani Power Limited Through its Deputy Manager East Wing, 4th Floor, Adani Corporate House, Shantigram, S. G. Highway, Ahmedabad – 382421, Gujarat Email: prakhar.bhardwaj@adani.com

2. Adani Dhanu Thermal Power Station

(Now known as Adani Power Limited) Through its Deputy Manager 4, BSES Colony, Dahanu Maharashtra – 401608 Email: prakhar.bhardwaj@adani.com

… Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai – 400005 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in

2. Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre Through its Managing Director Thane-Belapur Road, Airoli Navi Mumbai – 400708 Email: cesldc@mahasldc.in

3. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Email: setrcmsedcl@gmail.com ceppmsedcl@gmail.com / cedist@mahadiscom.in

4. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Through its Managing Director Best Bhavan, Best Marg, Colaba, Mumbai – 400001 Email: dcemerc@bestundertaking.com cerc@bestundertaking.com derc@bestundertaking.com depro@bestundertaking.com

5. Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited - Distribution Through its Managing Director CTS 407/A (New), 408 Old Village, Eksar Devidas Lane, Off SVP Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400103 Email: abaji.naralkar@adani.com manish1.kumar@adani.com

6. Tata Power Company Limited - Distribution Through its Managing Director Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Email: bhaskar.sarkar@tatapower.com prashant.kumar@tatapower.com vtnarayanan@tatapower.com

7. AEML SEEPZ Ltd Through its Managing Director Adani Corporate House, Shantigram, Near Vaishno Devi Circle, S G Highway, Khodiyar, Ahmedabad – 382421, Gujarat Email: anupam.patra@adani.com

8. Indian Railways, Central Railways Through its Dy. Chief Electrical Engineer (TRD) Electrical Branch, 2nd Floor, Parcel Office Building, Mumbai – 400001 Email: dyceetrdcrly@gmail.com / cedecrly@gmail.com

9. M/s. Gigaplex Estate Private Limited Through its Managing Director Plot No. C-30, Block ‘G’, Opp. SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Email: krcpower.ho@kraheja.com nchunarkar@kraheja.com

10. M/s. Mindspace Business Parks Private Limited Through its Managing Director Plot No. C-30, Block ‘G’, Opp. SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Email: krcpower.ho@kraheja.com nchunarkar@kraheja.com

11. M/s. KRC Infrastructure and Project Private Limited Through its Managing Director Plot No. C-30, Block ‘G’, Opp. SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Email: krcpower.ho@kraheja.com nchunarkar@kraheja.com

12. M/s. Nidar Utilities Panvel Limited Liability Partnership Through its Managing Director 12th Floor, Knowledge Park Building,

Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Email: regulatory@tuco.in

13. M/s. EON Kharadi Infrastructure Private Limited (EON SEZ Phase I & II) Through its Managing Director 709, Tower-2, WTC, Kharadi Pune – 411014 Email: nisar@eropower.in

14. M/s. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited Through its Managing Director 8th Floor, Centre 1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Email: contact@madcindia.org

15. M/s. Laxmipati Balaji Supply Chain Management Limited Through its Managing Director 02, 3rd Floor, F-Block, Ceejay House, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besent Road Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Email: suhas.ambade@arshiyalimited.com

16. M/s. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Through its Managing Director Administrative Building, Sheva, Taluka-Uran, Navi Mumbai – 400707 Email: bhagwansinkar@jnport.gov.in anilchopade@jnport.gov.in, milindaigalikar@jnport.gov.in

17. M/s. SEZ Bio-Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. (Hadapsar & Manjari) Through its Managing Director 212/2, Off Soli Poonawalla Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Email: legal@eropower.in, nisar@eropower.in

18. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited Through its Chief Engineer (RCD) Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Email: rcgen@mahagenco.in

19. M/s. Tata Power Company Limited - Generation Through its Managing Director Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai – 400001 Email: gbpednekar@tatapower.com

20. M/s. RattanIndia Power Limited, Amravati Through its Managing Director Plot No. D2 & D2, Part Additional Industrial Area, MIDC, Nandgaonpeth, Amravati – 444901 Email: shiftchargeamr@rattanindia.com amit.panchalwar@rattanindia.com

21. M/s. Sai Wardha Power Generation Private Limited Through its Managing Director 8-2-293/82/A/90 Road No. 9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Email: saivishnu.s@saiwardha.com, anand@msapartners.in

22. M/s. JSWEL, Ratnagiri Through its Managing Director Village Nandiwade Post Jaigad Tal Dist Ratnagiri, Maharashtra – 415614 Email: harshal.joshi@jsw.in/ sce34.jswerl@jsw.in harinath.chakravarthy@jsw.in

23. M/s. Jindal Power Limited Through its Managing Director Jindal Power Ltd. Nardhana Industrial Area, Tal: Shindkheda, Dist: Dhule, Maharashtra – 425403 Email: gaurav.grover@jindalpower.com rkshrivastava@jindalpower.com sarath.kumar@jindalpower.com

24. M/s. Ideal Energy Projects Ltd. Through its Managing Director 408/-405, Boomerang, Chandivli Farm Road, Near Chandivli Studio, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400072

Email: sandip.iepl@gmail.com

25. M/s. Sanvijay Alloys & Power Ltd.

(Formerly known as Grace Industries Ltd) Through its Managing Director Factory P. No. A-23, 24, 29 to 31 & D14, MIDC, Industrial Area, Tadali Growth Center, Tadali, Chandrapur – 442406 Email: cmrao.sapl@outlook.com

26. M/s. Omsairam Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director F 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 D-52/7 Gut No. 46 & 63, A MIDC Ph-II, Daregaon Jalna – 431213 Email: support1@consultantoasis.com osr.openaccess@gmail.com

27. M/s. Topworth Urja & Metals Limited Through its Managing Director Topworth Urja & Metals Limited Mouza Ukkerwahi, Village Heti, Post Udasa, Umred Road Nagpur, Maharashtra – 441203 Email: techcell.tuml@tuml.co.in Techcell.tuml@topworthgroup.com

28. M/s. Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd. Through its Managing Director Plot No. 41 & A2 MIDC Area, At Village – Ghugus, Tal. & Dist Chandrapur, Maharashtra – 442505 Email: rajneesh@lloyds.in

29. M/s. Daund Sugar Private Limited Through its Managing Director Gat No. 99, Alegaon, Alegaon, Pune, Maharashtra – 413801 Email: cogen@daundsugar.com

30. M/s. Shree Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Through its Managing Director Kumathe, Post: Tikekarwadi, Tal: North Solapur, Dist: Solapur Maharashtra – 413224 Email: cogen@siddheshwarsugars.com

31. M/s. Shri Ambalika Sugar Pvt. Ltd. Ambikanagar Through its Managing Director Baradgaon (Sudrik), Tal: - Karjat, Dist: Ahmednagar – 414403 Email: ambalikaelectrical@gmail.com

… Respondent (s)

Counsel for the Appellant(s) :

Amit Kapur Hemant Singh Biju Mattam Sourav Roy Mridul Chakravarty Supriya Rastogi Agarwal Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal Ankita Bafna Harshit Singh Nehul Sharma Alchi Thapliyal Sanjeev Singh Thakur Lavanya Panwar Indrayudh Chowdhury Devansh Pundir Sindhuja Rastogi Mahima Srivastava Jay Lal Dharmendra Singh Nitesh Singh Sajid Akhtar Nishant Kumar Arun Lal for App. 1

Amit Kapur Mridul Chakravarty Biju Mattam Hemant Singh Sourav Roy Supriya Rastogi Agarwal Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal

Ankita Bafna Harshit Singh Nehul Sharma Alchi Thapliyal Sanjeev Singh Thakur Lavanya Panwar Indrayudh Chowdhury Devansh Pundir Sindhuja Rastogi Mahima Srivastava Jay Lal Dharmendra Singh Nitesh Singh Sajid Akhtar Nishant Kumar Arun Lal for App. 2

Counsel for the Respondent(s) :

Sahil Chandra For Res. 1

Akshay Arora Praval Arora Chesta Mehta Arora Pratyaksh Badhoria Siddhant Dhoot for Res. 2

B.P. Patil, Sr. Adv. Shashwat Kumar Rahul Chouhan Harshit Gupta Mukut Choudhary Kajal Kakani Chaitanya Ahuja for Res. 3

Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv. Tavinder Pal Sidhu A. P. Singh Neetica Sharma Naman Saraswat Saloni Jagga Shivangi Chawla Kanav Singhal for Res. 4

Puja Priyadarshini Rishabh Bhardwaj Deeptanshu Chandak Yashwardhan Bansal Anik Majumdar for Res. 8

Surabhi Guleria for Res. 18

IA No.1936 OF 2025 IN APPEAL No.57 OF 2026 & IA No.80 OF 2026

JSW Energy Limited Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Anurag Agarwal JSW Centre, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Email: agarwal.anurag@jsw.in

… Appellant

Versus

1. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in

2. Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre Through its Managing Director Thane-Belapur Road, Airoli Navi Mumbai – 400708 Email: cesldc@mahasldc.in

… Respondent(s)

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Amit Kapur Aman Anand Aman Dixit Natasha Debroy Srishti Gupta For App. 1

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Sahil Chandra for Res. 1

Akshay Arora Praval Arora Chesta Mehta Arora Pratyaksh Badhoria Siddhant Dhoot for Res. 2

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER IA No.1789 OF 2025 IN APPEAL No.350 OF 2025 & IA No.1936 OF 2025 IN APPEAL No.57 OF 2026 (For interim relief)

1. By way of these applications, the appellants have sought stay of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short “the Commission”) in case no.03/2025, which has been assailed in these two appeals.

2. It appears that the 2nd respondent Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre (in short “MSLDC”) had, under the MERC (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters) Regulations, 2019, prepared a procedure for “Apportionment of Legacy Dues Charges Bills of WRLDC by MSLDC to State Entities”. Some of the state entities raised objections to the said procedure and did not pay the bills raised in terms thereof. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent approached the Commission by way of a

petition bearing case no.3/2025 for removal of difficulty under DSM Regulations, 2019 and seeking approval of the methodology for apportionment of Legacy Charges to be paid by Western Regional Load Despatch Centre (WRLDC) among the State Entities.

3. The petition has been disposed of by the Commission vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 thereby approving the methodology proposed by the 2nd respondent MSLDC. The Commission has held that intra-state thermal power generators also are liable to share burden of Legacy Charges and directed them to deposit the Legacy dues within a period of one month from the date of the order.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the 2nd respondent MSLDC raised invoices dated 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025 upon the appellants which own and operate thermal power stations in the State of Maharashtra.

5. Feeling aggrieved, these two appeals have been filed by two power generators operating in the State of Maharashtra claiming following reliefs: - Appeal No.350 of 2025: “a) Set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory

Commission in Case No. 3 of 2025, to the extent that it allows recovery of legacy dues from the injecting entities such as the Appellants herein, in terms as stated in the present Appeal;

b) Consequently, quash the letters cum invoices dated 20:01.2025, 04.11.2025 and 06.11.2025 raised by MSLDC, to the extent of Legacy Dues and Delayed Payment Surcharge imposed upon the Appellants; and

c) Pass any order and/ or any such orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate.”

Appeal No.57 of 2026:

“A. Set aside the Impugned Order dated 31.10.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1, MERC in Case no. 3 of 2025, approving the levy and directing the appellant to pay Regional Pool Legacy Charges; and

B. Direct the Respondent no. 2/MSLDC to refund the entire amount paid by the Appellant under protest as Regional Pool Legacy Charges for the period 16.09.2023 to 15.09.2024, of Rs.3,57,47,088.08/-along with interest @ 18% p.a.; and

C. Direct the Respondent no. 2/MSLDC to refund the entire amount paid by the Appellant under protest as

Regional Pool Charges demand for the period 16.09.2024 to 02.11.2025 of Rs. 22,99,760/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.; and

D. Restrain the Respondent no. 2/MSLDC from raising any further demands on the Appellant, based on the statements and demands of NLDC/WRLDC made against Respondent no. 2, in respect of deficits in the Regional Pool; and/or

E. Pass any other order(s) as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper.”

6. As already noted hereinabove, in the applications at hand the appellants have prayed for stay of the impugned order as well as the consequential demands raised by the 2nd respondent.

7. It appears that the appellant in appeal no.57 of 2026 has paid certain amount to the 2nd respondent MSLDC as Regional Pool Legacy Charges under protest, and therefore, prayer has been made in the said appeal for direction to the 2nd respondent MSLDC to refund the entire amount, so paid under protest by the appellant, to the appellant along with interest. However, in so far as the prayer made in the interim application i.e. IA No.1936/2025 in the said appeal is concerned, the same is limited to the

stay of the operation of impugned order of the Commission as well as restraining the 2nd respondent MSLDC from making further demands/bills based on the statements published by NLDC from time to time in pursuance to the impugned order of the Commission.

8. We may note here that in appeal no.350 of 2025 there are total 31 respondents whereas in appeal no.57 of 2026 there are only two respondents. Maharashtra State Load Despatch Center (MSLDC) is respondent no.2 in both the appeal, whereas Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is respondent no.1 in both the appeals.

9. We have heard Shri Amit Kapur, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Mr. B.P. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.3 as well as learned counsels appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 18. Written submissions filed by the learned counsels have been perused.

10. Lengthy and elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. Arguments on behalf of the appellants being that the DSM Regulations, 2019 do not contemplate recovery of Legacy DSM dues from the injecting entities i.e. the power generators thereby reinforcing the settled principle that DSM dues deficits are to be borne

only by drawee entities responsible for grid drawl imbalances and therefore, the impugned order being contrary to the Regulations cannot be given effect to.

11. Respondent no.18 supports the appellants in saying that the impugned order is directly in violation of the DSM Regulations, 2019.

12. The application is vehemently resisted by respondent nos.1 & 2 in both the appeals besides by respondent nos.3 & 4 in appeal no.350 of 2025. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed by the Commission after due and detailed consideration of the applicable regulatory framework under the DSM Regulations, 2019 and has correctly come to the conclusion that payments towards the Regional Deviation and Ancillary Services Pool Account are mandatorily routed through the Intra- State DSM Pool. It is submitted that Intra-State generating units are also responsible and accountable for their respective deviations based on “causer pays’ principle followed in the DSM Regulations and thus, they are also required to pay the DSM Charges in the Intra-State DSM Pool for their deviations. It is further argued that the Commission has not created a new category of tariff nor has it imposed any retrospective liability. The Commission has merely exercised powers available under the existing framework including Regulation 19 to remove operational difficulties and

has thus, issued appropriate directions to make the regulatory framework workable. Learned counsels for these respondents vociferously argued that no case for stay of the impugned order or the consequential demands raised by 2nd respondent, has been made out and the application deserves outright dismissal.

13. We have referred to the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties in nutshell only and do not find it necessary to record and discuss each and every argument advanced by them as we feel inclined to allow the application at hand in view of the following reasons.

14. We note that in Paragraph no.27 of the impugned order the Commission has taken note of the pendency of the two Writ Petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 5392 of 2025 and WP(C) No.12647 of 2025 filed by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited respectively in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the order passed by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding retrospective recovery of Legacy Charges has been challenged. We find it pertinent to extract hereunder Paragraph Nos.27, 28 and 29 of the impugned order in this context: - “27 In this context, the Commission notes that Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 5392 of 2025) filed by Punjab State

Power Corporation Limited and Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 12647 of 2025) filed by North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited challenging the Order passed by the CERC regarding the retrospective recovery of these Legacy Charges are pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. These Writ Petitions were listed for hearing before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 23 September 2025, and the next hearing in these Writ Petitions is scheduled on 9 December 2025.

28 Thus, the legality of these Legacy Charges is being examined by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Commission to deal with the legal issues raised by the Respondents regarding CERC Order/NLDC Procedure in present proceeding.

29 Also, although the Wirt Petitions are pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, from submissions of the Respondents, it is observed that there is no stay to the levy of Legacy Charges directed through the CERC Order and the NLDC procedure. Hence, the Commission is of the view that the CERC Order and the NLDC procedure have to be followed by all concerned DICs.”

15. From these observations of the Commission in Paragraph No.29 of the impugned order, it is evident that the Commission found it justified to continue the proceedings of the Commission and to pass final order as no stay with regards to levy of Legacy Charges had been passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in these two Writ Petitions. This is indicative of the fact that in case any stay had been granted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in these two Writ Petitions as regards to the levy of Legacy Charges, the Commission may not have continued the proceedings of the petition and may not have passed the final order.

16. Even in the concluding observations, the Commission has directed the MSLDC to monitor the status of these two writ petitions before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and to take appropriate steps after any decision is rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the writ petitions. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereinbelow: - “ORDER ………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………

4. MSLDC is directed to monitor the status of the Writ Petitions filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, challenging the Legacy Charges, and take appropriate steps after the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decides the Writ

Petition (WP (C) No.5392 of 2025) (WP (C) No.12647 of 2025)”

17. During the course of arguments, it has been conveyed to us that vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in these two Writ Petitions, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has stayed the deficit recovery statement issued for levy of Legacy dues. Copy of the said order dated 09.12.2025 was produced which has been perused. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereinbelow: -

“3. In the meanwhile, having regard to the various interim orders passed by various High Courts, where similar issues have been raised, we provide that there shall be stay on the Deficit Recovery Statement issued by the respondent no.2 on 17.09.2025, 31.10.2025, 14.11.2025 and 28.11.2025, till the next date of listing.”

18. Moreover, it has also been brought to our notice on behalf of the appellant that various other High Courts also have stayed the levy of Legacy Charges. Hon’ble Kerala High Court vide order dated 10.04.2025 in WPC No. 13482 of 2025, titled as KSEB v. CERC & Ors, granted an interim protection of 2 months to KSEB. This protection has since continued and is in force. Hon'ble Madras High Court by order dated 13.06.2025 passed in WP No. 20912 of 2025, titled as TNPDCL v. Ministry of Power, Union of India & Ors., granted interim stay on the demand

notices issued by the Regional SLDC upon the State Discom. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court by order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 18517 of 2025, titled as Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd v. UOI & Ors., suspended (for the interim period) the operation of order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Ld. CERC in Petition No. 1/SM/2025 and demand notices issued by the Regional SLDC upon the Petitioner. The said interim protection was extended by the Hon'ble High Court vide orders dated 19.08.2025 and 14.10.2025. Hon'ble Telangana High Court by order dated 24.07.2025 passed in WP No. 19729 of 2025, titled as Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited v. CERC & Ors., directed NLDC and the Regional SLDC not to take any coercive measures for recovery of legacy dues pertaining to the period prior to 16.09.2024, against the Petitioner, till the next date of hearing.

19. Therefore, once the levy of Legacy Charges has been challenged by various entities by way of writ petitions filed in various High Courts, as noted hereinabove, wherein the demand notices issues by Regional SLDC and NLDC have been stayed, we find it not only appropriate but also desirable to stay the impugned order of the Commission whereby it has approved the methodology proposed by 2nd respondent MSLDC for apportionment of Legacy dues to be paid by the injecting State Entities

also in pursuance to which demand notices have been issued to the appellants herein.

20. Hence, we allow both the applications bearing nos.1789/2025 and 1936/2025 and stay the operation of the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 of the Commission passed in petition no.3/2025. As a sequitur, the consequential demand raised by the 2nd respondent upon the appellants in both these appeals also stands stayed.

APPEAL No.350 OF 2025 & IA No.1791 OF 2025 AND APPEAL No.57 OF 2026 & IA No.80 OF 2026

21. Replies, if already not filed, shall be filed by the respondents within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, to the replies filed by the respondents shall be filed by the appellants within two weeks thereafter. The Registry to verify completion of pleadings and thereafter include the appeals in the ‘List of Finals of Court-1’ to be taken up from there, in their turn.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of July, 2026.

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member (Seema Gupta) Officiating Chairperson

✓ REPORTABLE / NON-REPORATBLE tp