Reading Time: 2 minutes
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed Appeal No. 124 of 2021, filed by Siddhayu Ayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd. (SARFPL), on 20th March 2025. The appeal challenged the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) order dated 23rd December 2020 in Case No. 161 of 2020. The case revolves around the issue of banking energy generated by SARFPL’s wind power projects in Maharashtra during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
SARFPL owns and operates nine wind-generating facilities in Nandurbar district, Maharashtra, with a combined capacity of 12.85 MW. The dispute arose when SARFPL’s open-access consumer, Mahindra CIE Automotive Ltd., was unable to consume power in April 2020 due to the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. As a result, the wind energy generated was banked with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL).
SARFPL requested MERC to relax the banking regulations and allow adjustment of the entire banked energy from April 2020 to July 2020 or direct MSEDCL to purchase the excess energy. MERC rejected this request, stating that the regulations only allow banking up to 10% of the total generation, and MSEDCL was not obligated to buy more energy beyond this cap.
In its appeal to APTEL, SARFPL argued that the pandemic was an unforeseen event and constituted a force majeure situation. They claimed that denying relief during such exceptional circumstances was unjust. The appellant stated that continuing under open access during April 2020 was a commercial decision made with the hope that restrictions would be lifted soon. SARFPL contended that MERC had earlier granted relief to MSEDCL for failing to meet its Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) targets during the COVID-19 period, and similar flexibility should have been extended to renewable energy generators.
MSEDCL argued that SARFPL voluntarily assumed commercial risks by continuing under open access despite the lockdown. They stated that the power to relax regulations should not be used arbitrarily and must consider fairness for all stakeholders. MSEDCL also pointed out that the appellant had the option to sell power through their online portal but chose not to do so.
APTEL agreed with MERC and MSEDCL, concluding that regulations cap the banking of energy at 10% of generation. It emphasized that relaxing this limit would undermine the regulatory framework and create unfair advantages for one party. APTEL also noted that SARFPL’s decision to continue open access was a commercial risk, and regulatory provisions could not be altered to offset poor business choices.
The tribunal cited legal precedents stating that discretionary powers should not override regulations or offer undue advantages. It confirmed that MSEDCL was not obligated to purchase excess energy beyond the prescribed limits.
As a result, APTEL upheld MERC’s original decision and dismissed the appeal filed by SARFPL. The tribunal ruled that no further relief was warranted and disposed of all pending applications related to the case.
