JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS.

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS.

Parties
Appellants: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.; Respondents: MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (d.b. Civil Writ Petition No.14815 of 2020) Before the Supreme Court; Final Disposal of Appeals
Legal Topics
Section 63 Electricity Act, Competitive Bidding Guidelines (s.63), Market Alignment of Tariffs, Powers of State Electricity Regulatory Commission (s.86(1)(b)), Bid Evaluation Committee and RFP Provisions, Consumers' Interest, Judicial Review and Alternate Remedy, Mandamus and Award of Contracts, Interpretation of ‘all’/‘any’ and Purposive Construction, ‘filling the Bucket’ Theory
Electricity Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Section 63 Electricity Act Competitive Bidding Guidelines (s.63) Market Alignment of Tariffs +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Appellants

MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (d.b. Civil Writ Petition No.14815 of 2020) Before the Supreme Court; Final Disposal of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Commission and the Bid Evaluation Committee may consider market alignment of tariffs and reject bids under clause 5.15 of the Central Bidding Guidelines when adopting tariff under s.63 of the Electricity Act, 2003
  2. 2 Whether an Appropriate Commission is bound to adopt tariffs determined by a transparent bidding process without regard to market alignment or consumer interest
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ under Article 226 and issuing mandamus compelling procurers to enter into PPAs with MB Power when effective statutory remedies existed