APTEL Rejects BESCOM Plea Against ₹5.07/kWh Tariff For 20 MW Solar Project

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed an interim application filed by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) and another appellant seeking a stay on an earlier order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) in connection with a 20 MW solar power project developed by M/s Brics Renewable Energy Private Limited.

The matter relates to a KERC order dated December 30, 2021, which had condoned a 114-day delay in the commissioning of the solar project. By allowing the delay, the Commission permitted the developer to retain the agreed tariff of Rs 5.07 per kWh under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), instead of applying a lower generic tariff.

The APTEL Bench, comprising the Officiating Chairperson and Judicial Member, rejected the stay plea on May 20, 2026, citing the appellant’s prolonged delay and lack of urgency in pursuing the matter. The Tribunal observed that BESCOM did not challenge the KERC order for more than one and a half years after it was issued. Instead, the utility complied with the order and paid over Rs 1.14 crore as a differential tariff to the solar developer in November 2022.

The Tribunal further noted that the appellant later approached the Karnataka High Court in June 2023 by filing a writ petition instead of directly approaching APTEL. However, the High Court did not grant any stay on the KERC order. After withdrawing the writ petition in April 2024, the appellant waited another three months before filing the appeal before APTEL in July 2024.

The Bench also pointed out that even after filing the appeal, the interim application remained pending for nearly two years because the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments. Referring to the legal maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,” meaning the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, the Tribunal stated that interim relief is an equitable remedy that requires prompt action.

While APTEL acknowledged that the appellant may have a prima facie case, it ruled that this alone was insufficient for granting a stay. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove irretrievable loss or establish that the balance of convenience was in its favor. Since the PPA remains valid until 2041, the Tribunal observed that any excess amount paid could be recovered later if the appeal succeeds.

The original dispute involved three Force Majeure claims raised by the developer, including GST implementation, delay in signing a supplementary agreement, and a 555-day delay in obtaining evacuation approvals. KERC had accepted only the evacuation delay as valid grounds for condoning the commissioning delay. APTEL stated that it prima facie agreed with KERC’s findings on this issue while clarifying that its observations would not affect the final hearing of the appeal.