APTEL Dismisses Plea Challenging KERC Move to Bar Rooftop Solar Project Timeline Extensions

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed a petition challenging a directive issued by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) that barred further time extensions for rooftop solar developers.

The case concerned a letter issued by KERC on September 27, 2016, directing utilities not to grant additional extensions to developers of rooftop solar projects beyond the timelines prescribed under earlier tariff orders.

Petitioners Challenge Commission’s Action

The petitioners, including legal heirs of a rooftop solar developer and a project owner, argued that the regulator had acted improperly and outside the framework of the Electricity Act.

They contended that the matter was maintainable under Section 121 of the Act, claiming the commission had failed to perform its statutory duties.

According to the petitioners, the directive was never placed in the public domain, violating transparency requirements under the law. They also argued that the move effectively deprived them of the higher tariff of ₹9.56 per unit set under a 2013 tariff order by preventing project extensions, thereby forcing projects into lower tariff categories without following due regulatory procedures.

The petitioners described the situation as a case of regulatory failure and sought intervention from the tribunal.

BESCOM Defends Regulator’s Move

Respondent utility Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) opposed the petition, arguing that the case itself was not maintainable.

The utility said Section 121 applies only when a regulatory commission fails to perform its statutory functions. In this case, the regulator had issued multiple tariff orders and was actively exercising its authority.

BESCOM also argued that the tribunal does not have powers of judicial review under that provision, citing Supreme Court precedent.

According to the utility, the 2016 letter was issued to curb widespread delays and repeated extensions granted to rooftop solar projects, which undermined the timelines established in tariff orders.

Tribunal Finds No Regulatory Failure

APTEL ruled that Section 121 is limited to issuing directions where a commission has neglected its statutory duties and cannot be used to challenge the validity of regulatory actions.

The tribunal said the Karnataka regulator had not failed in its responsibilities. Instead, by issuing the directive, it was exercising its authority to regulate procurement and ensure developers adhered to project timelines.

APTEL also rejected the argument that the letter required public consultation, noting that it did not establish a new tariff but merely enforced compliance with conditions linked to existing tariff orders.

Petition Held Not Maintainable

The tribunal further noted that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the commission’s action, the appropriate legal remedy would have been to file a statutory appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, rather than an original petition under Section 121.

With these findings, APTEL dismissed the petition as not maintainable.