"Deeply concerning": Senior Advocate flags de-listing of Discoms v. JSW matter from roster bench in Supreme Court

A hearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the case between Rajasthan electricity distribution companies (discoms) and a JSW Group subsidiary took an interesting turn after Senior Advocate Shyam Divan alleged that the matter was de-listed from the roster bench sans any explanation. .Following the objection, the Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale directed that the matter be listed for hearing before the roster bench in December.The development took place when the matter was being adjourned on request. Divan, appearing for three power companies of the Rajasthan government, hinted that the matter was not supposed to be listed before the present bench."I should mention one factor which is this matter came up before a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar who was the roster bench, then Justice [Alok] Aradhe recused himself. So it was listed before another roster bench for electricity matters presided over by Justice [PS] Narasimha. It came up but it didn't reach; then Justice Narasimha rolled all the matters for a week, but suddenly we find that it has moved from there to here," Divan said..At this, Justice Mithal said that the Court was not "interested" in taking up the matter. However, Divan said,"No, no. It is a cause of deep concern for me because once it comes up before a roster bench, how does it suddenly migrate?"Justice Mithal in response said,"You know better about the working of the Registry!"Divan said,"I wish I did!".The Court then observed that the matter may have been listed before the present bench on nomination by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Divan said that he was not aware."It was [last] listed before Justice Narasimha and it was to come up but it did not reach and it was rolled over," he submitted, adding that the Justice Narasimha-led Bench had not recused from the matter..Ultimately, the Court said that it will adjourn the matter with an order for placing it before an appropriate bench."See, we are not interested in any particular matter," Justice Mithal asserted. On a lighter note, Justice Varale said,"Mr Divan, in electricity matters, some little shocks are expected."The matter was then posted for hearing on December 9 before the appropriate roster bench. "Hopefully no [more] shocks," Divan said, while walking away. .The controversy pertains to a lignite mining project of the Rajasthan government. It is operated by South West Mining Limited (SWML), a JSW Group company. In 2006, a consortium of JSW Energy Limited, SWML and Raj West Power Limited (RWPL) was formed for the project. Later, a JV company Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited (BLMCL) - comprising RWPL and State-owned Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Limited (RSSML) - was formed. It is the leaseholder of Kapurdi and Jalipa lignite mining blocks in Barmer, Rajasthan. RWPL or JSW Energy (Barmer) is a lignite-based thermal power generating company which receives lignite from BLMCL. The electricity is then supplied to State distribution companies..In 2016, the power companies filed a petition before Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) for supply of information related to lignite, actual payments made by the BLMCL to SWML and the expenses incurred by the latter.In April 2023, RERC ordered SWML to submit actual monthly mining expenses since inception to BLMCL. The price arrived at by any of the processes will ultimately affect the consumer at large, the RERC had opined in the order.SWML refused to comply and moved the Rajasthan High Court against RERC orders, citing confidentiality. After a single-judge of the High Court dismissed the same in August 2023, the matter reached a Division Bench. In February 2025, the Division Bench granted relief to the JSW subsidiary. .However, the matter had reached the Supreme Court in 2024 itself when the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and other power companies challenged observations made by a High Court division bench in its decision on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the bidding process and sought a direction that electricity tariffs in Rajasthan be kept at a minimum in public interest.Later, the power companies also challenged the February 2025 decision of the High Court in which relief was granted to SWML. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and other power companies have contended that the High Court division bench lacked the roster to hear the appeal. It has also been argued that confidentiality clauses in private contracts cannot override statutory duties..In the top court, a Bench headed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna in April 2025 ordered that the proceedings before the RERC may continue, but no final order will be passed till further hearing in the present petition. On August 25, a Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar ordered SWML to produce before the RERC the original records and data that were called for by the commission, along with the witness concerned. It had noted that SWML had failed to abide by an earlier undertaking in this regard. "We, however, clarify that the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the RERC, with regard to disclosure of details, would not extend to or cover the original records and data that would be produced by respondent No. 1, pursuant to this order," it added, while referring to the RERC order seeking details of expenses. Justice Alok Aradhe recused from the matter on October 28. It was then listed before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar on November 4, but it could not be taken up for hearing that day. The Supreme Court website shows that the matter then went to the Justice Mithal-led bench. .Along with Divan, Advocates Kartik Seth, Shilpa Saini, Raghav Sharma, Shubhankar Singh, Lakshmi Kant Srivastava and KM Abish appeared for the petitioners (Rajasthan discoms). Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh and P Chidambaram along with Advocates Aman Anand, Aman Dixit, Natasha Debroy, Srishti Gupta, Shashwat Singh, Rohan Talwar, Naman Agarwal, EC Agrawala, Zoheb Hossain, Vaibhav Niti, Divyanshu Agrawal, Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki and Syed Ahmad Naqvi appeared for different respondents. [Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.