APTEL Rejects TSSPDCL’s Review Plea In 10 MW Solar Project Dispute

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has dismissed a review petition filed by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. The petition, numbered 14 of 2025, sought a review of an earlier judgment delivered in January 2024. The original dispute came from a case involving a 10 MW solar power project in Nagarkurnool, developed by M/s Kranthi Ediffice Private Limited. The developer had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on January 8, 2015, with the Discom at a tariff of ₹6.49 per unit. The project was expected to start commercial operations by January 7, 2016, but this deadline was extended several times by the state government and the state electricity regulator. A supplementary agreement signed on December 3, 2016, gave the developer time until December 31, 2016, at a slightly revised tariff of ₹6.45 per unit.

The developer did not commission the project by this final date and blamed reasons such as demonetization. After the Discom refused any further extension, the developer approached the state regulator. The regulator rejected the extension under the Force Majeure clause in its December 2018 order, but still granted the developer relief on humanitarian grounds. It directed the Discom to modify the agreement and provide the developer with another 90 days to achieve the commercial operation date, but at a reduced fixed tariff of ₹5.52 per unit for a period of 25 years.

The Discom challenged this decision before the Tribunal. However, in January 2024, the Tribunal upheld the regulator’s direction and dismissed the appeal. After this, the Discom sought a review of that judgment. The key reason put forward was that the developer was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal in Hyderabad. These proceedings were admitted on June 27, 2022, and a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was in place. The Discom argued that this situation amounted to an event of default under the Power Purchase Agreement. According to the Discom, this default should have allowed them to terminate the contract, but the Tribunal’s order to amend the agreement prevented this.

In its final order on November 17, 2025, the Tribunal examined the arguments. It observed that the order of the National Company Law Tribunal simply stopped the continuation of pending suits against the company under insolvency. It did not relate to or restrict the appeal that the Discom had filed. The Tribunal pointed out that the aim of the moratorium under the insolvency law is to protect the company’s assets and allow it to continue operations. Allowing the solar project to proceed under the regulator’s order did not harm the Discom in any way. The Tribunal also examined the clause in the Power Purchase Agreement that dealt with insolvency.

It noted that for a default to arise under this clause, the insolvency proceedings should either remain uncontested for 30 days or a final insolvency order must be passed. The Discom could not show that either of these conditions had happened. While the Tribunal agreed that the developer should have revealed the insolvency case, it said that this information would not have changed the earlier decision. Since the Discom could not present any solid ground for review, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.