Fadnavis letter: SG flags power tribunal to CJI | India News

Fadnavis letter: SG flags power tribunal to CJI
SG Tushar Mehta asks CJI Surya Kant to examine APTEL’s functioning after Maharashtra govt flags alleged pro-private power developer bias

New Delhi: Days after Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis flagged pro-private power developer bias of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in a letter to PM Narendra Modi, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta on Friday requested CJI Surya Kant to look into the tribunal’s functioning.While seeking an urgent hearing of an appeal filed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) against JSW Energy Ltd, Mehta said: “The CJI must examine what is happening in APTEL.” MERC has challenged APTEL’s decision not to send the case back to the state regulator for fresh consideration.MERC said, “The manner in which APTEL has proceeded in deciding MERC’s appeal is egregious as it has summarily dismissed the submissions of the regulator” and wrongly recorded that Solicitor General had made no attempt to take the tribunal through the impugned order or explain why the regulator considered the order to be erroneous and in need of reconsideration.MERC added , “During the course of the arguments, the SG had taken APTEL through the notification as well as the impugned order in detail. Specific arguments were advanced regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction as well as the error apparent on the face of the record.”There was a dispute between Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co (MSEDC) and JSW over applicability of central govt’s May 5, 2022, notification on operation at full capacity of imported coal-based power plants. On Dec 24 2025, MERC said that since JSW is an intra-state power plant, the notification would not apply to it making Power Purchase Agreement rates applicable.MSEDC challenged MERC’s order before APTEL. During the pendency of the appeal, MERC felt it had committed a jurisdictional error on applicability of the central notification and wanted to revisit its decision. It requested APTEL to remit the matter back for reconsideration, which was refused on Aug 19.

Share your thoughts in the comments