APTEL Dismisses GUVNL Appeal Plea Over GERC Short-Term Open Access Charge Refund Order

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed an application filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) and four state-owned distribution companies seeking permission to appeal against an order issued by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC). The Tribunal held that the applicants failed to establish that they were directly aggrieved or legally prejudiced by the Commission’s decision.

The dispute relates to a GERC order dated November 10, 2025, passed in a petition filed by Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO). Torrent Power Limited (TPL), a private distribution licensee, had challenged the levy of Short Term Open Access (STOA) charges, alleging discriminatory treatment compared with state utilities.

GERC ruled in favour of TPL and directed GETCO to comply with applicable open access regulations without discrimination. The Commission also directed GETCO to refund STOA charges collected from TPL for inter-state bilateral transactions and power exchange transactions between FY 2017-18 and the date of the order, subject to the condition that TPL had not used the state transmission network for those transactions.

GUVNL and four state distribution licensees subsequently approached APTEL seeking leave to appeal against the GERC order. They argued that they were affected because, as bulk power procurers, they bear the residual transmission costs of GETCO. According to them, any refund or reduction in STOA charges payable by TPL could increase the financial burden on state distribution companies.

The applicants also argued that GERC should have impleaded them as necessary parties because they were signatories to the Transmission Service Agreement and the Commission had considered provisions related to the agreement while deciding the dispute.

GETCO did not oppose the application. However, TPL strongly contested the plea, stating that no relief had been sought against GUVNL or the state distribution companies and that GERC had issued no directions to them. TPL also maintained that the disputed refund related only to inter-state transactions in which GETCO’s intra-state transmission network was not used.

TPL further informed the Tribunal that GETCO had already submitted a compliance affidavit confirming the validity of TPL’s refund claims.

A bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Seema Gupta and Judicial Member Virender Bhat observed that a non-party seeking to challenge an order must establish direct legal injury or prejudice. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court precedents and noted that an indirect or speculative financial impact does not make a person an “aggrieved person” entitled to appeal.

APTEL also observed that GUVNL and the state distribution companies had opportunities during earlier public hearings and tariff proceedings to raise objections concerning the STOA charge structure. Since they had not participated in those proceedings, they could not subsequently rely on non-impleadment to challenge the decision.

The Tribunal also clarified that GERC had not issued any operative directions concerning the Transmission Service Agreement itself.

Accordingly, APTEL dismissed the leave application, IA No. 274 of 2026. As a result, the main appeal, DFR No. 70 of 2026, was also dismissed as not maintainable.