High Court of Karnataka Examines Challenge to CERC's Authority Over Inter-State Open Access Conditions; SLDC's Clause Deemed Contrary to UI Regulations. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's Order on Unscheduled Interchange Charges Found to Prevail Over SLDC's Imposed Conditions Under Electricity Act, 2003.

Writ appeal against order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition which challenged CERC's order setting aside additional condition in open access clearance and directing settlement of dues as per regulations.

Appellants seek to set aside the Single Judge's order and allow the writ petition, thereby restoring the impugned condition inserted by SLDC and challenging CERC's jurisdiction.

The appellants contended that CERC lacked jurisdiction, the SLDC's condition was statutory to ensure grid security, and Regulation 8 of Open Access Regulations is ultra vires.

CERC's order dated 09.10.2012 in Petition No. 124/MP/2011 set aside the impugned clause and directed settlement as per regulations; Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition against CERC's order on 22.05.2023, upholding CERC's order and directing establishment of independent SLDC.

Whether CERC has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding conditions imposed by SLDC in open access clearance? Whether the impugned condition inserted by SLDC is contrary to CERC (Open Access in Inter-State Transmission) Regulations, 2008? Whether Regulation 8 of the Open Access Regulations is ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003? Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing the establishment of independent SLDC?

Appellants contended that SLDC's impugned condition was imposed to regulate injection and drawal of power due to SSL's history of deviation from approved schedule, endangering grid security; SSL being below 25 MW not subject to ABT/SCADA, so monitoring was necessary. SSL contended that impugned clause violates Regulation 20(5) of Open Access Regulations and UI Regulations, as it provides asymmetric treatment: generator pays UI rate for shortfall but receives lower KERC rate for excess generation. Appellants argued that CERC lacks jurisdiction to decide on conditions imposed by SLDC under Section 33 of Electricity Act, 2003 for grid security. SSL argued that SLDC cannot impose conditions determining tariffs for inter-State open access transactions, as these are governed by CERC regulations.

Clause (m) – for any excess generation, the rates fixed by KERC for old plants only will be paid and not as per UI rates. However, for shortfall in generation as compared to the scheduled generation, the firm will pay UI rates. the CERC set aside the impugned clause and directed the appellants to settle the dues of SSL from January, 2010 onwards in accordance with Regulation 20 (5) of the CERC (Open Access in Inter-State Transmission) Regulations, 2008

SSL commissioned 20 MW co-generation plant in 1999; PPA with KPTCL ended in September 2009; SSL applied for SC/NOC for inter-State open access; SLDC inserted impugned clause effective 01.04.2010; SSL filed petition before CERC on 21.02.2011; CERC passed order dated 09.10.2012 setting aside clause and directing settlement per regulations; Appellants filed writ petition before High Court; Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 22.05.2023 and directed establishment of independent SLDC; Appellants filed writ appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961; Appeal heard and reserved for judgment; Judgment pronounced on 30.04.2026.

• Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
• Electricity Act, 2003: Section 39, Section 40, Section 31, Section 32, Section 33, Section 76, Section 79, Section 79(1)(f)
• CERC (Open Access in Inter-State Transmission) Regulations, 2008: Regulation 20(5), Regulation 26, Regulation 8
• CERC (Unscheduled Interchange Charges and Related Matters) Regulations, 2009: