Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a company operating Captive Power Plants for meeting its electricity requirements, challenged the validity of Regulation 32 (Late Payment Surcharge) and Regulation 92 (Parallel Operation Charges) of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2025, framed by the respondent Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that these regulations are ultra vires the Constitution, the Electricity Act, 2003, and the National Tariff Policy, and sought a direction restraining the respondent from imposing Parallel Operation Charges. The background facts showed that the respondent published draft Tariff Regulations, 2025 through a public notice dated 23.11.2024, inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders by 23.12.2024. The petitioner submitted its objections on 23.12.2024, questioning the legality of Parallel Operation Charges on Captive Power Plants and the reasonableness of the Late Payment Surcharge. A public hearing was held on 27.12.2024. The respondent issued the Statement of Objections and Reasons on 24.01.2025, finalized the regulations on 18.02.2025, and notified them in the Official Gazette on 06.03.2025, conferring statutory force. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The legal issues included whether Regulation 92 was ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); whether Regulation 32 was arbitrary and disproportionate; whether the Commission complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 181(3) read with Rule 3(4) of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005; whether delegated legislation could impose a fiscal burden without express statutory authority; whether Regulation 92 created an impermissible classification between Captive Power Plants and Independent Power Producers; and whether retrospective application of the levy was permissible. In arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 92 travelled beyond the parent Act because Sections 9, 42(2), 61, 86 and 181 did not authorize imposition of Parallel Operation Charges on captive generators; Section 9 expressly promotes captive generation and the proviso to Section 42(2) exempts captive users from surcharge for open access. It was argued that delegated legislation cannot impose a tax or fee absent express authority, relying on ADM Delhi v. Siri Ram and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla. The petitioner also submitted that the foundational ERDA study was not disclosed, depriving stakeholders of meaningful opportunity to verify cost-reflective nature. On procedure, it was argued that the Commission merely invited objections but did not consider them as required by Rule 3(4), citing Chairman, LIC of India v. A. Masilamani and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited. Regulation 92 was also challenged as creating impermissible classification and lacking authority for retrospective operation, citing Vice Chancellor, M.D. University v. Jahan Singh. The petitioner distinguished Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited. On Regulation 32, the petitioner argued that the Late Payment Surcharge of 0.1% per day was arbitrary and disproportionate, though the provided excerpt ended during that submission. The respondent's positions, as reflected in the petitioner's rebuttals, included pleas of estoppel and constructive res judicata based on Petition No. 2180/2023, justification of Parallel Operation Charges through an ERDA study, reliance on prior 2019 Regulations, and reliance on the two decisions distinguished by the petitioner. The excerpt of the judgment did not include the court's analysis or final decision, as it ended during the petitioner's submissions on Regulation 32.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Regulation 32 (Late Payment Surcharge) and Regulation 92 (Parallel Operation Charges) of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2025 are ultra vires the Constitution of India, the Electricity Act, 2003, the National Tariff Policy, and whether the Commission complied with procedural requirements under Section 181(3) read with Rule 3 of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005.
Law Points
- Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond scope of parent enactment
- Delegated legislation cannot impose tax or fee absent express statutory authority
- Statutory requirement to consider objections under Rule 3(4) of Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules 2005
- Regulation 92 challenged as ultra vires Electricity Act 2003
- Captive generation promoted under Section 9 of Electricity Act 2003
- Proviso to Section 42(2) exempts captive users from surcharge for open access
- Impugned levy on Captive Power Plants alleged to create impermissible classification
- Retrospective application of subordinate legislation invalid absent statutory sanction
- Late Payment Surcharge challenged as arbitrary and disproportionate
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (06) 7
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10431/2025
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati
Mr. Vikas Balia, Mr. Aditya K. Singh, Mr. Karmendra Singh, Mr. Vineet Gupta, Mr. Devendra Khatri, Mr. Suniel Purohit, Mr. Jasraj Singh
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging validity of Regulation 32 (Late Payment Surcharge) and Regulation 92 (Parallel Operation Charges) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2025.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration that Regulation 32 and 92 are ultra vires Constitution, Electricity Act, 2003, and National Tariff Policy; direction to respondent not to impose Parallel Operation Charges; and any further orders.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a company operating Captive Power Plants, aggrieved by levy of Parallel Operation Charges and Late Payment Surcharge under the 2025 Tariff Regulations.
Previous Decisions
Earlier proceedings in Petition No. 2180/2023 concerning modification under removal of difficulties jurisdiction; respondent raised estoppel and constructive res judicata; petitioner contended earlier proceedings did not adjudicate legality/vires. Prior POC under 2019 Regulations was remanded by Appellate Tribunal.
Issues
Whether Regulation 92 (Parallel Operation Charges) is ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Whether Regulation 32 (Late Payment Surcharge) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of the Constitution and the Electricity Act, 2003.
Whether the Commission complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 181(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule 3(4) of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005 by meaningfully considering objections.
Whether delegated legislation can impose a fiscal burden in the absence of express statutory authority.
Whether Regulation 92 creates an impermissible classification between Captive Power Plants and Independent Power Producers, violating Article 14.
Whether the impugned levy can be given retrospective effect absent express statutory sanction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued Regulation 92 is ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003 because the Act does not authorize imposition of Parallel Operation Charges on Captive Power Plants; Section 9 promotes captive generation and proviso to Section 42(2) exempts captive users from surcharge for open access.
Petitioner contended that Sections 61, 86 and 181 merely confer regulatory powers and cannot authorize a fresh fiscal burden not contemplated by the parent statute, relying on ADM Delhi v. Siri Ram and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla.
Petitioner submitted that the foundational ERDA study was not disclosed to stakeholders, depriving them of meaningful opportunity to verify cost-reflective nature of Parallel Operation Charges.
Petitioner argued non-compliance with Rule 3(4) of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005, stating that inviting objections and holding a hearing is insufficient without meaningful consideration, citing Chairman, LIC of India v. A. Masilamani and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited.
Petitioner contended that Regulation 92 creates impermissible classification by singling out Captive Power Plants while Independent Power Producers with similar grid interaction are not levied, offending Article 14.
Petitioner argued the Commission lacks authority to give retrospective effect to subordinate legislation without express statutory sanction, citing Vice Chancellor, M.D. University v. Jahan Singh.
Petitioner distinguished Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Rain Calcining Limited, arguing they dealt with different frameworks and did not support unrestricted power to impose Parallel Operation Charges.
Petitioner disputed respondent's plea of estoppel and constructive res judicata based on Petition No. 2180/2023, contending earlier proceedings did not adjudicate validity of Regulation 32.
Petitioner argued Regulation 32 is arbitrary and disproportionate, subjecting consumers to a Late Payment Surcharge of 0.1% per day, though the submission was cut off in the provided excerpt.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:
Regulation 92 is ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003 inasmuch as the Act does not authorize imposition of Parallel Operation Charges upon Captive Power Plants.
Inviting objections and conducting a hearing is not sufficient compliance with the statutory scheme. The requirement under Rule 3(4) is not merely to receive objections but to meaningfully consider them.
Regulation 92 creates an impermissible classification by singling out Captive Power Plants for levy of Parallel Operation Charges while Independent Power Producers, despite having similar interaction with the grid, are not subjected to such levy.
Regulation 32 is arbitrary and disproportionate inasmuch as it effectively subjects consumers to a Late Payment Surcharge of 0.1% per d
Procedural History
The respondent-RERC published draft Tariff Regulations, 2025 and Explanatory Memorandum vide public notice dated 23.11.2024, inviting objections by 23.12.2024. The petitioner submitted objections on 23.12.2024 questioning legality of Parallel Operation Charges and reasonableness of Late Payment Surcharge. A public hearing was held on 27.12.2024. The respondent issued Statement of Objections and Reasons on 24.01.2025, finalized Tariff Regulations on 18.02.2025, and notified them in the Official Gazette on 06.03.2025. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging Regulation 32 and Regulation 92. Arguments were concluded on 21.05.2026, judgment was reserved the same day, and pronounced on 19.06.2026 as full judgment reportable.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226
- Electricity Act, 2003: Sections 9, 42(2), 61, 86, 181, 181(3)
- Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2025: Regulations 32, 92
- Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005: Rule 3, Rule 3(4)
- National Electricity Policy, 2005:
- Tariff Policy, 2016:
