Discom Delays Leave Solar Generator in Legal Limbo

A decade‑long legal battle over a modest 1‑megawatt solar project in Madhya Pradesh has become a cautionary tale of how India’s distribution companies, or discoms, can entangle renewable generators in procedural knots, draining both investor confidence and judicial resources.

In 2016, JK Minerals commissioned its solar plant in Shajapur with a power purchase agreement to supply electricity to Indore Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. The arrangement required long‑term open access (LTOA) approval from the state transmission utility. Despite assurances that consumption would remain within contracted demand, the Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company and Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company denied access, citing congestion.

The denial forced JK Minerals to inject power into the grid without compensation. The company petitioned the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) in 2017, only to see its plea dismissed in a brief order. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) criticized the regulator’s reasoning and remanded the matter.

By then, JK Minerals had signed a new agreement with Deepak Fasteners Ltd. and was granted LTOA in 2018. In 2019, MPERC finally allowed access for Treasure Island but refused to compensate the generator for losses during the intervening years. JK Minerals pressed on, seeking reimbursement of nearly ₹1.4 crore.

This month, APTEL ruled that the denial of LTOA was erroneous and that the discoms had benefited from free solar power. Applying principles of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal ordered compensation for energy injected between September 2017 and May 2018, payable at the average power purchase cost, along with carrying charges.

Key Outcome Of The Judgement 

The judgment underscores a larger problem: discoms often delay or deny access, leaving small renewable developers to fight protracted battles. For JK Minerals, the outcome vindicates its position, but the years lost are irrecoverable.

Industry observers say such disputes erode trust in India’s renewable push. “Dragging a 1‑megawatt project through nine years of litigation sends the wrong signal,” one analyst noted. “It discourages smaller players who lack the resources to survive prolonged legal wringing.”

The Tribunal itself invoked the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the court shall prejudice no man — to stress that regulatory errors should not harm generators. Yet the case illustrates how, in practice, delays do just that.

For India’s clean energy ambitions, the lesson is clear: regulatory clarity and timely adjudication are as vital as policy targets. Without them, discoms’ procedural resistance risks turning renewable projects into courtroom sagas, undermining both investor confidence and national goals.