In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) have the jurisdiction to entertain petitions filed by individuals who are not direct consumers, as long as the petitions raise issues of public interest. This judgment significantly broadens the scope of regulatory oversight and reinforces the role of the commissions as guardians of public welfare in the electricity sector. The Court’s decision came in the context of an appeal filed by Torrent Power Limited, challenging an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC), which had admitted a petition from a private individual alleging irregularities in the distribution franchisee agreement for the city of Agra.
The case revolved around a petition filed in 2012 by a person who was not a registered consumer of Torrent Power but had raised concerns over the functioning and performance of Torrent Power as the distribution franchisee appointed by Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (DVVNL). The petitioner requested an investigation into anomalies in the agreement, highlighting that the public interest was being compromised. Torrent Power challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the individual was not a consumer and hence, lacked the locus standi to approach the regulatory commission.
UPERC, however, took the view that the regulatory commission’s authority extends beyond individual consumer grievances and includes acting in the broader public interest. The Commission accepted the petition and even appointed a committee to investigate the matter. Torrent Power appealed this decision before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which upheld UPERC’s stance. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Torrent Power approached the Supreme Court, contending that only consumers as defined under the Electricity Act could bring such matters before the Commission.
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment delivered by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of both UPERC and APTEL. The Court emphasized that the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Sections 128 and 129, grants regulatory commissions inquisitorial powers that are distinct from adjudicatory functions. These provisions allow the commissions to initiate inquiries either suo motu or on the basis of credible material submitted by any person, regardless of whether that person is a consumer.
In interpreting these provisions, the Court noted that the commissions are not confined to resolving disputes between licensees and consumers. Their role is regulatory, and their jurisdiction includes ensuring compliance with licensing conditions, tariff structures, service quality, and operational efficiency. As such, they are empowered to look into matters that affect the public at large, and they need not wait for a complaint from a consumer to take action. The Court clarified that restricting petitions only to consumers would effectively tie the hands of regulatory authorities and undermine the purpose of their establishment.
The Supreme Court further rejected Torrent Power’s argument that franchisee agreements fall outside the purview of the regulatory commissions. The Court stated that although the agreements may be contractual in nature, the impact of the franchisee’s operations on public utilities brings them squarely within the scope of regulatory scrutiny. If the franchisee arrangement leads to inefficiencies, billing issues, or service breakdowns, it directly affects the public and therefore justifies the commission’s intervention.
Importantly, the Court also elaborated on the nature of proceedings under Sections 128 and 129, explaining that these are non-adversarial in character and focused on fact-finding and ensuring public accountability. The regulatory commissions, in their capacity, are expected to act not merely as dispute settlers but as proactive bodies safeguarding the interests of electricity consumers and the public at large. A person who brings to light substantial concerns relating to systemic inefficiency or regulatory violations is performing a public function and should not be barred from doing so merely because of technical limitations like consumer status.
The decision thus affirms that regulatory commissions can consider and act upon petitions brought in the interest of transparency, fairness, and accountability in the power sector, irrespective of who files them. The Court warned that limiting the jurisdiction to only direct consumers would allow irregularities and violations to go unchecked if the affected public is technically not permitted to raise concerns.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the regulatory regime in India’s electricity sector. It ensures that the functioning of utilities and private operators entrusted with the distribution of electricity remains under constant scrutiny, not only from consumers but from vigilant citizens and organizations who act in the public interest. It also places a responsibility on regulatory commissions to respond to credible inputs, conduct fact-finding missions, and ensure that the objectives of the Electricity Act are realized in both letter and spirit.
By recognizing the wider locus standi in regulatory proceedings, the Supreme Court has reinforced the participatory nature of governance in sectors dealing with essential services. This judgment empowers public-spirited individuals and groups to hold powerful utility companies accountable, even if they are not directly affected as consumers. It sets a precedent for similar sectors where regulatory oversight plays a crucial role in safeguarding public interest, especially in areas like telecommunications, transport, and environmental regulation.
In sum, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a progressive interpretation of the Electricity Act, giving regulatory commissions the flexibility and jurisdiction to address systemic issues, irrespective of who brings them to light. It is a reaffirmation of the regulatory commission’s duty to act in public interest and a crucial step toward more transparent and inclusive oversight of essential infrastructure services.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.