Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd Through ... vs Mp Electricity Regulatory Commission on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12894
1 WP-17679-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17679 of 2025
M.P. POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD THROUGH ITS OFFICER IN
CHARGE SHRI SANJAY KUMAR NEMA AND OTHERS
Versus
MP ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernad - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
1. The petitioners have filed this present petition seeking direction to the
respondents No.2, 5 & 7 to immediately remove the uploaded invoices amount
from the PRAAPTI Portal. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ for quashing Column 7 of the PRAAPTI Portal maintained
by respondents No. 5 & 7 showing the default trigger dates of 21.5.2025,
3.6.2025, 20.6.2025 and 8.7.2025.
2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 established a wind-
based generating plant in the year 2016. The M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd.
tested, certified and sealed the ABT meters installed at the project. Respondent
No.2 requested the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of
M.P., to execute the Power Project Agreement at the rate of Rs.5.92 per unit as per
the tariff order dated 26.3.2013. On 10.2.2017 the petitioners and respondent No.2
entered into the Power Project Agreement at the tariff of Rs.4.7 per unit as per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12894
2 WP-17679-2025
order dated 17.3.2016. The respondent No.2 approached the MPERC, claiming the
tariff at the higher rate. Vide order dated 19.4.2017, the ld. MPERC dismissed the
petition by observing that since the project was commissioned on 5.5.2016,
therefore, the tariff will be governed as per the tariff order dated 17.3.2016. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.2 preferred an Appeal
No.174/2017 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Vide order dated
10.2.2025, the appeal has been allowed, and the order passed by the MPERC in
Petition No.7/2017 has been set aside, holding that the respondent No.2 is eligible
for a tariff of Rs.5.92 per unit to be paid from the date of electricity supply into the
grid.
3. After the aforesaid order, the respondent No.2 on 6.3.2025 has uploaded
the amounts of invoice no. 90035723 and invoice no. GB/24-25/APTEL/1 for Rs.
3,60,23,206 and 1,08,95,37,565, respectively, on the Praapti Portal, and the due
date for payment of the same was 5.4.2025, and the default trigger date is
21.05.2025. The petitioner has also uploaded the amounts of invoice no. 90036507
for Rs. 3,24,94,880 on 19.3.2025, invoice no.
GBWPPL/Differentailinvoice/28022025 / 28022025 on 9.4.2025 for Rs.
77,20,76,796 and invoice No. 90038401 on 21.04.2025 for Rs. 4,86,26,803 and
these bills have been presented/amount uploaded in the PRAAPTI Portal.
Thereafter, the respondent No.2 moved an application on 11.4.2025 for
rectification in the judgment dated 10.2.2025 that the payment of invoices is to be
made by the petitioner i.e. M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd.
4. Shri Ashish Bernad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that now,
vide order dated 14.5.2025, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has modified the
order dated 10.02.2025 directing the petitioners to make payment to the
respondent no.2. Shri Bernad, Learned Counsel fairly submits that the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12894
3 WP-17679-2025
have approached the Apex Court challenging the judgement dated 10.2.2025
passed in Appeal No.174/2017 by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which
has not come up for hearing yet. The petitioners are also going to challenge the
order dated 14.5.2025 in the said SLP. Shri Bernad further submits that the
Supreme Court of India is going to close for summer vacation- 2025, therefore,
the SLP is not likely to be heard on merit as well as on interim relief in the next
week, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable for grant of interim relief to the
petitioners till the Apex Court takes up the SLP on admission as well as on interim
relief.
5. Since the petitioners have already approached the Apex Court by way of
SLP challenging the order dated 10.02.2025 and are going to challenge the
amended order dated 14.05.2025, therefore, this Court cannot entertain the writ
petition only to grant interim relief during the interregnum period in respect of
stay and the quashment of invoices issued after the order passed in favour of
respondent No.2 by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The Supreme Court is
working till 23.5.2025 and thereafter during partial vacation also. Therefore, this
petition is absolutely misconceived.
6. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
