Cannot blow hot and cold: Supreme Court on Haryana discoms going back on stance taken before CERC

State instrumentalities cannot be allowed to contest assessments and methodologies adopted by regulatory agencies after initially accepting the same, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday. (Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & anr v. Adani Power Mundra Ltd and ors).A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath noted that Haryana power discoms were guilty of the same."We find that Haryana Utilities are indulging into approbation and reprobation. They cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. After accepting before the CERC that they would adopt the methodology as given in the case of GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (supra), it would not be appropriate, in our view, on the part of the appellants, which are, after all, instrumentalities of the State, to change its stand after final orders are passed by the CERC.".The Court observed the same while dismissing appeals against a Delhi Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) decision that upheld power purchase agreements entered into by Haryana discoms with Adani Power. The Tribunal had upheld the rulings of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in this regard.The APTEL had noted that before the CERC, the appellant had not contested the methodology for computation of relief for shortage of coal under change in law..The top court said that there was nothing to show that the fora below had delivered their verdicts based on any extraneous considerations or without considering material on record. The grounds for interfering with findings of expert bodies in such matters was also made clear."Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two expert bodies could have been interfered with only if they failed to take into consideration the mandatory statutory provisions or if the decisions had been taken by them on extraneous considerations or that they were ex facie arbitrary and illegal."The matter was, accordingly, disposed of..Senior Advocate MG Ramachandran appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the contesting respondent..[Read judgment]