In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Load ...

vs Central Electricity Regulatory WRIT PETITION

NO.1286 of 2020

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Andhra Pradesh
State Load Dispatch Centre to issue Writ of certiorari and quash the petition No.342/MP/2019
pending before respondent No.1 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for curtailment of
generation of solar power while declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and
contrary to Section 86 (1) (f) and Section 33 (4) of Electricity Act .

The petitioner is the Andhra Pradesh State Load Despatch Centre (for short "APSLDC) constituted by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 31 of the Electricity Act and discharging its
responsibilities provided under Section 32 of the Electricity Act.

Respondent No.1 is the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short "CERC") constituted
under Section 76 of Electricity Act 2003 to discharge its functions assigned in Section 79 of the
Electricity Act 2003.

Respondent No.2 - "Prayatna developers" is a generating company, as defined in Section 2 (28) of

the Electricity Act and engaged in the business of generation of solar energy. Respondent No.2 owns
and operates a solar power project of 50 MW capacity at Gani in Kurnool, in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.

The major contention was that APSLDC is curtailing their generation and that they failed to comply
with IEGC regulations. clauses 5.2(u) and 6.5(11).

There were three points of issues in case –

 Whether the Writ of Certiorari can be issued in the circumstances stated in the writ petition?
Writ of Certiorari is a kind of writ that can be issued by Superior Courts only against an order
passed by the Tribunal or inferior Courts. But here, no order was passed by CERC to exercise
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash
the same . The court held that in the present case writ of prohibition is most appropriate
remedy.

 Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties?

Court observed that all parties to the said petition were not impleaded as parties to the
present writ petition. Since the necessary parties are not involved in the writ petition it will
be dismissed.

 Whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ
petition to quash the order of a tribunal ?
Not including necessary party in the writ will make the exercise futile and will matter of
injustice to the party. Court stated that due to absence of one party NTPC who is a party to
the agreement entered with Respondent no. 2 the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus in the light of determinations made by apex court the petition was dismissed .