NHDC Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
IA NO. 1337 OF 2026 IN APPEAL No. 329 OF 2026
nd
Dated: 02 NOVEMBER, 2026
Present: Hon`ble Ms. Seema Gupta, Officiating Chairperson
Hon`ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
IN THE MATTER OF:
NHDC Limited
Through its Gr.Deputy General Manager (Commercial),
NHDC Parisar,
Near Hotel Lake View Ashoka,
Shyamla Hills,
Bhopal-462013,
Madhya Pradesh. … Appellant
VERSUS
1. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission,
Through its Secretary,
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar,
New Delhi-110029.
2. M.P. Power Management Company Limited,
Through its Managing Director,
Shakti Bhawan, Rampur,
Jabalpur-482008,
Madhya Pradesh
3. Narmada Valley Development Authority,
Through its Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Madhya Pradesh,
59, Are Hills, Narmada Bhawan,
Bhopal-462011. ….Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : Suparna Srivastava for App. 1
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Ashish Anand Bernard
Aditya Singh
Paramhans Sahni for Res.2
ORDER
IA NO. 1337 OF 2026
(For stay)
PER HON’BLE MRS. SEEMA GUPTA, OFFICIATING CHAIRPERSON
1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by NHDC
Limited (“NHDC”/“Appellant”), in Appeal No 329 of 2026, seeking an
interim stay of the common order dated 30.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”)
passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”/“
Central Commission”) in Petition Nos. 378/MP/2022 and 220/MP/2022,
whereby the Central Commission has allowed the claim of Respondent No.
2-M.P. Power Management Company Limited (“MPPMCL”) for
retrospective application of the corrigendum dated 29.03.2022 issued by
the Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”) in relation to the Techno-Economic
Clearance (“TEC”) for the Indira Sagar Project (“ISP”), implemented by the
Appellant, and has directed consequential revision of the Firm Power and
Design Energy of ISP as well as the Omkareshwar Project (“OSP”), along
with refund of the differential Secondary Energy Charges to Respondent
No. 2, the M.P. Power Management Company Limited ( “MPPMCL”).
Facts of the case
2. The Appellant, NHDC is engaged in the operation of the Indira
Sagar (ISP) and Omkareshwar (OSP) hydroelectric projects situated on the
river Narmada in Madhya Pradesh. The Design Energy, Firm Power and
Page 2 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
tariff for both projects had been determined by the Central Commission in
successive tariff orders on the basis of the respective Techno-Economic
Clearances (“TECs”) issued by the Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”) on
22.05.1984 for ISP and on 14.12.1993 for OSP.
3. On 29.03.2022, CEA issued a corrigendum to the TEC for ISP,
indicating the unit of water utilisation parameter ‘Q’ as Million Acre Feet
(“MAFt”) instead of Billion Cubic Meters (“BM³”). Thereafter, M.P. Power
Management Company Limited filed Petition Nos. 378/MP/2022 and
220/MP/2022 before the Central Commission seeking revision of the
Design Energy and Firm Power of the two projects (ISP & OSP) on the
basis of the said corrigendum.
4. By the Impugned Order dated 30.03.2026, the Central Commission
held that the earlier determination of Design Energy and Firm Power
required revision by considering ‘Q’ in MAFt and directed consequential
revision of the tariff for the relevant periods. The Central Commission
further directed the parties to reconcile the differential refund amount within
three months and directed the Appellant to refund the amount so
determined in 12 equal, interest-free instalments.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the Appellant has preferred
the accompanying Appeal 329 of 2026 under Section 111 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, challenging, inter alia, the retrospective application of the CEA
corrigendum and the reopening of tariff orders which, had already attained
finality. The Appellant contends that implementation of the Impugned Order
would entail substantial financial and regulatory consequences, including
retrospective reconciliation of accounts and disturbance of settled financial
and commercial arrangements.
Page 3 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Analysis and Discussion
6. We have heard Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant- NHDC Limited, Mr. Aashish Anand
Bernard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2-
MPPMCL, and have perused the written submissions filed by the parties,
the pleadings and other documents placed on record. The rival
submissions advanced by the parties are summarized hereunder:
Submissions urged on behalf of Appellant
7. The Appellant is a joint venture between NHPC Limited (51%) and
the Government of Madhya Pradesh (49%) and has implemented the 1000
MW Indira Sagar Project (“ISP”), which achieved COD on 25.08.2005, and
the 520 MW Omkareshwar Project (“OSP”), which achieved COD on
15.11.2007, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The entire power generated
from these projects is purchased by Respondent No. 2 at the tariffs
determined by the Central Commission. The Appellant submits that the
‘ISP’ was implemented in accordance with TEC issued by CEA on
22.05.1984, which specified water utilisation in BM³, whereas the TEC for
‘OSP’ dated 14.12.1993 specified the corresponding water utilisation in
MAFt. Since ‘ISP’ functions as the mother reservoir supplying water to the
downstream ‘OSP’ for power generation, use of two different units of
measurement for the interconnected projects would result in an anomaly in
the computation of water availability, Design Energy and Firm Power and
in the tariff filings for both projects BM³, has been considered as the unit for
water utilization. The Central Commission determined tariffs accordingly
over successive tariff periods, and Respondent No. 2, having participated
in the tariff proceedings and has accepted the tariff determinations without
Page 4 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
challenging the use of BM³ for ‘ISP’ & ‘OSP’ and such tariff orders have
attained finality.
8. It is submitted that, in Petition No. 106/GT/2020, filed for
determination of tariff for the period 2019–24, Respondent No. 2 had raised
the discrepancy in the unit of water utilisation and sought revision of the
TEC and the corresponding tariff determinations for past periods. However,
Central Commission vide Order dated 06.01.2022, declined to undertake
such revision at that stage, observing that Firm Power and energy
generation were to be reviewed on the basis of actual data upon completion
of the three stages of water utilisation. The Appellant contends that
Respondent No. 2, having accepted the said finding, is precluded from
raising the same claim afresh, which is barred by the principles of res
judicata, as recognised in “ State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain , (1977) 2 SCC
806”, and “ Union of India v. N. Murugesan , (2022) 2 SCC 25” .
9. CEA, after more than four decades from the issuance of the original
TEC for ‘ISP’, issued a Corrigendum dated 29.03.2022, stating that “BM³
(Billion Cubic Metre) may be read as ‘MAF’ (Million Acre Feet)”, without
specifying any retrospective application. Relying upon the principle that a
substantive amendment cannot ordinarily operate retrospectively in the
absence of express authority, particularly where vested rights and
concluded transactions are affected, as discussed in “ Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. v. Tata Communications Ltd.”, (2022) 20 SCC 96, the
Appellant contends that the Corrigendum could operate only prospectively.
10. Central Commission, vide the Impugned Order, has allowed the
petitions filed by Respondent No. 2, holding that the unit of water utilisation
ought to have been considered as MAFt instead of BM³ and that the
Page 5 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Corrigendum dated 29.03.2022 relates back to the original TEC and
consequently, held that the Firm Power, Design Energy and corresponding
tariff for the relevant past periods were erroneously determined and warrant
review based on equitable consideration, and that the excess Secondary
Energy Charges allegedly paid by Respondent No. 2 were liable to be
refunded. The Central Commission has further held that the petitions were
within limitation, as the right to sue accrued upon issuance of the
Corrigendum, and that the proceedings did not constitute forum shopping
or abuse of process. Central Commission directed revision of Firm Power,
Design Energy and the consequential tariff computations for FY 2010–11
to FY 2018–19, and directed the parties to reconcile the amounts payable,
with the Appellant being required to refund the differential amount in 12
equal, interest-free instalments. The amounts reconciled pursuant to the
Impugned Order are Rs109.58 Crore for ‘ISP’ and Rs 46.55 Crore for
‘OSP’, aggregating to Rs156.13 Crore, payable in 12 instalments of
approximately Rs13.01 Crore each.
11. The Appellant submits that the Impugned Order suffers from various
infirmities like the CEA Corrigendum dated 29.03.2022 is silent on
retrospective applicability, and its application to past tariff periods alters the
technical basis of tariff determination and imposes substantial financial
liabilities; therefore, the same cannot be treated as a mere clerical
correction, as held in Vijay v. UOI & Ors.*, (2023) 17 SCC 455; Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu & Anr., (2023) 19
SCC 30; Bharat Vijay Mills v. UOI, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 373. It is further
contended that Respondent No. 2 seeks to reopen concluded Tariff Orders
on the basis of the Corrigendum, although the alleged discrepancy in the
unit of water utilisation was discernible from the inception and could have
been raised in the original proceedings. The Corrigendum cannot constitute
Page 6 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
“new and important matter or evidence” within the meaning of Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC, and the Central Commission, while exercising review
jurisdiction, has failed to apply the settled principles governing such
jurisdiction. In support, reliance is placed upon Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd.,
(2009) 6 SCC 235 . The Regulation 103 of the CERC (Conduct of Business)
Regulations, 1999 prescribes a limitation period of 45 days for review and
that the finding that the cause of action arose only upon issuance of the
Corrigendum is erroneous, as the alleged discrepancy existed from the
inception. It is also contended that the Central Commission could not grant
unpleaded or unprayed monetary relief on equitable grounds, as equity
cannot override settled law, as held in Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230 . The Appellant further submits that the
issue concerning the unit of water utilisation is barred by the principles of
res judicata, having already been considered in the earlier proceedings,
and that the Central Commission has re-adjudicated the issue without
addressing the Appellant’s objection on this ground. It is also contended
that Respondent No. 2 sought only declaratory relief in Petition Nos.
378/MP/2022 and 220/MP/2022 and did not seek any consequential relief,
and that grant of such relief in the absence of a specific prayer is
impermissible under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly
where further relief was available but not sought, as held in Muni Lal v.
Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 90; Ranbir
Singh v. Executive Engineer, (2011) 15 SCC 453 . The retrospective
revision of Design Energy, Firm Power and consequential tariff for
concluded periods would unsettle established financial and regulatory
arrangements and is contrary to Section 62(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
as cited in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. DERC, (2023) 4 SCC 788; Delhi
Jal Board v. DERC & Ors., Order dated 04.01.2013 in Appeal No. 157
Page 7 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
of 2012;PTC India Ltd. v. CERC, (2010) 4 SCC 603; Shree Siddhbali
Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 SCC 193, . Furthermore,
Respondent No. 2 is pursuing substantially overlapping reliefs before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Central Commission, which amounts
to forum shopping and is impermissible in law, as cited in Union of India
& Ors. v. Cipla Ltd. & Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 262.
12. CERC has failed to appreciate the cascading financial and
regulatory consequences of the impugned directions, particularly when the
corresponding power purchase costs have already been accounted for and
passed through in ARR and retail tariffs applicable to end consumers. The
Appellant submits that the balance of convenience lies in preserving the
existing position pending adjudication of the Appeal, as failure to grant
interim protection would cause irreparable injury to the Appellant.
Appellant, therefore, satisfies the three essential requirements for grant of
interim stay, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of
convenience in its favour, and the likelihood of irreparable injury, as
recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad
Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v.
Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1.
Submissions Urged on behalf of Respondent No.2
13. It is submitted that Corrigendum dated 29.03.2022 issued by the
CEA has never been challenged by the Appellant before any court of law
and, therefore, NHDC cannot now dispute its applicability by questioning
its date of operation. The Corrigendum relates back to the original order
and applies retrospectively, unlike an amendment, which operates from the
date of its issuance and therefore consequences flowing from the
Page 8 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Corrigendum must ensure to the benefit of Respondent No. 2, Further it is
clear that “Corrigendum” is not an “Amendment” and only an “Amendment”
is applicable from the date of issuance. It is further contended that the
Appellant was consulted by the CEA before issuance of the Corrigendum.
The CERC has conclusively dealt with this issue in paragraphs 28–31 of
the Impugned Order. It is also submitted that the “Corrigendum” relates
back to its original order and a perusal of corrigendum dated 29.03.2022,
clearly shows that the corrigendum has been issued to the letter of the year
1989 wherein the CEA has stated that the BMQ may be read as MAFt. In
support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon Polyplex
Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, 2014 SCC OnLine All
5211 .
14. The Respondent No. 2 submits that no review of the previous Tariff
Orders has been sought by it or undertaken by CERC, as the formula for
calculation of Design Energy had been provided by NHDC itself, and only
the values to be incorporated into the said formula required reconsideration
in view of the corrigendum dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CEA to its letter,
whereby the unit of water utilisation for irrigation, i.e., ‘Q’, was corrected
from BM³ to MAFt. Accordingly, the Design Energy was required to be
recalculated by considering the value of ‘Q’ in MAFt in all Tariff Orders
issued by this Commission since 2010 in respect of the Indira Sagar Power
Station. The CERC has rightly observed in Paragraph 25 that “The
Petitioner had paid excess secondary charges to the Appellant on account
of the incorrect consideration of the unit water utilization for irrigation ‘Q’ as
BM3 instead of MAfT by CEA in its TEC in respect of ISHEP and the
Commission in its Tariff Orders. Further, in Paragraphs 40–42, the CERC
has clearly held that there is no change in the approved Annual Fixed
Charges (AFC), Capacity Charges or Energy Charges, and that any
Page 9 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
revision is confined only to Secondary Energy Charges, which constitute
an incentive payment to the Generator over and above the AFC. The
objection regarding limitation is also not sustainable, as the cause of action
accrued in favour of Respondent No. 2 on 29.03.2022, upon issuance of
the corrigendum, whereas the Petition was filed in August 2022. Further, a
correction or corrigendum precedes an inherent admission on the part of
the person making correction/issuing corrigendum that the initial document
or initial authored material has some mistake and admitting this mistake
the same is being rectified/corrected and hence a correction/corrigendum,
in support of which reliance is placed upon “ State of Rajasthan and
Another v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 673”.
15. Appellant, vide letter dated 02.11.2022, had approached the CEA
seeking clarification regarding the applicability and effective date of
implementation of the corrigendum dated 29.03.2022, and it is the
Appellant’s own case that the corrigendum should be applicable from the
date of its issuance. However, CEA did not respond to the said letter, nor
did the Appellant challenge the corrigendum. Thus, the conduct of the
Appellant demonstrates its acceptance of the corrigendum, and the
Appellant cannot now raise objections to deny Respondent No. 2 the
benefits accruing therefrom. Further, the principle of res judicata is not
applicable in the present case, as the CERC, in its order dated 06.01.2022,
particularly in Para 68, observed that there was no reason to revise the
Design Energy (DE) “at this stage”, as also evident from Paragraphs 66–
67 of the said order. Therefore, upon issuance of the corrigendum dated
29.03.2022, the requisite circumstances had arisen for Respondent No. 2
to file the Petition seeking revision of the Design Energy, which has been
allowed by the CERC, and consequently, the bar of res judicata does not
apply.
Page 10 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
16. Further, CERC has rightly held in Paragraph 41 of the Impugned
Order that there is no change in the total actual energy generated during
the disputed period and that the effect is limited only to the reclassification
of energy from Secondary Energy to SDE/DE. The illustration provided by
the CERC in the said paragraph further clearly demonstrates that the total
generation remains unchanged and that only the Secondary Energy is
affected by the change in the unit of water utilisation from BM³ to MAFt.
The change in the unit of consumptive water utilisation, i.e., ‘Q’, from BCM
to MAF in the formula determined by the CERC for both ISP and OSP
power stations of the Appellant does not materially affect the recovery of
fixed charges allowed by the CERC under various orders for the period
from 2010–11 to 2018–19.
17. It is contended that, as per TEC, the permissible Design Energy for
ISPS for the period from 2010–11 to 2018–19 (i.e., the First Stage) is 1,980
MUs. However, the Appellant has been computing and claiming Design
Energy on the basis of a formula considering the value of ‘Q’ in BM³,
resulting in Design Energy varying from 1,900.93 MUs to 1,423.28 MUs,
whereas, upon considering the value of ‘Q’ in MAFt, the corresponding
Design Energy varies from 1,958.91 MUs to 1,655.89 MUs. Similarly, for
OSPS, the Design Energy specified in the TEC is 1,166.57 MUs, whereas
the Appellant has been computing and claiming Design Energy by
considering the value of ‘Q’ in BM³, resulting in Design Energy varying from
865.05 MUs to 736.45 MUs, while consideration of ‘Q’ in MAFt results in
the corresponding Design Energy varying from 896.44 MUs to 848.77 MUs.
Thus, the aforesaid figures indicate that, in both projects, the Appellant has
been claiming Design Energy substantially lower than that specified in the
TEC, as a consequence of which the energy generated over and above the
Page 11 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
lower Design Energy so computed is treated as Secondary Energy, thereby
resulting in a higher quantum of Secondary Energy and, in turn, a higher
incentive claim.
OUR CONSIDERATION
18. It is an admitted position that Techno Economic clearance for the
ISP (1000 MW) was granted vide letter dated 22.05.1984 and that for OSP
(520 MW) project was granted vide letter dated 14.12.1993, and ISP
project achieved COD on 25.08.2005, and the OSP, achieved COD on
15.11.2007, and has been supplying power to Respondent No 2. The
Corrigendum to TEC of ISP has been issued on 29.03.2022, clarifying that
unit of water utilization (Q) indicated in the TEC of ISP as BM3 to be
considered as MAFt. Thereafter, Respondent No 2 filed petitions before the
Central Commission, seeking revision of Firm Power and Design Energy
for ISP and OSP based on the corrigendum to TEC issued by CEA, revising
unit of water utilization from BM3 to MAFt, which led to revision of energy
for these projects for the tariff period from 2010-11 to 2019-24 in the
Impugned Order and it was held that “ Computation of Firm Power, Design
Energy and the corresponding energy beyond the design energy have
been revised on the value of Q MFBt for the period 2010-11 to 2018-19 ”.
Accordingly, the design energy of both ISP and OSP was revised.
19. Appellant and Respondent No 2 were directed to reconcile the
amount, and such an amount to be refunded by Appellant in twelve interest
-free installments to MPPMCL. The said amount has been reconciled and
has been quantified at Rs109.58 Crore for ISP and Rs 46.55 Crore for OSP,
aggregating to Rs156.13 Crore (up to FY 2018-19), payable in 12
instalments of approximately Rs13.01 Crore each in terms of Impugned
Page 12 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Order. It is further stated in the Impugned Order, that design Energy for
the year FY 2019-20 onwards shall be considered in the truing – up
petitions for the year 2019-24, filed by NHDC, which are already under
consideration before the Central Commission. Admittedly, the Appellant
has not challenged the Corrigendum letter to TEC dated 29.03.2022 and
stated to be already made applicable prospectively. Appellant is only
aggrieved by the retrospective application of the Corrigendum, leading to
re-computation of design Energy and Firm Power for the period FY 2010-
11 onwards and accordingly, seeks stay of the Impugned Order pending
disposal of the Appeal.
20. The grant or refusal of interlocutory relief is covered by three well
established principles viz., (1) whether the Appellant has made out a prima
facie case, (2) whether the balance of convenience is in their favour i.e.,
whether it would cause greater inconvenience to them if interim relief is not
granted than the inconvenience which the opposite party would be put to if
it is granted, and (3) whether the Appellant would suffer irreparable injury.
With the first condition as a sine quo non, at least two conditions should be
satisfied by the Appellant conjunctively, and a mere proof of fulfilment of
one of the three conditions does not entitle them to the grant of interlocutory
relief in their favour. ( Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah
Bahadur , AIR 1975 AP 187; Gone Rajamma v. Chennamaneni Mohan
Rao , (2010) 3 ALD 175; Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corpn ,
(2009) 11 SCC 229; Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Ltd. v. Aditya
Birla Nuvo Ltd. , (2012) 6 SCC 792; State of Mizoram v. Pooja Fortune
Private Limited , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1741).
21. In the present case, it has been mainly contended by Respondent-
MPPMCL that the letter dated 29.03.2022 is in the form of corrigendum to
Page 13 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
the TEC issued for ISP on 22.05.1984 and therefore there is no bar in its
retrospective application. The distinction between a corrigendum and an
addendum is doctrinally clear. A corrigendum , derived from the Latin
corrigere , is issued to rectify an error, omission, or misstatement in the
original instrument; its function is corrective, and it operates to heal a defect
in the text already promulgated. An addendum , by contrast, stems from the
Latin addere , and is employed to supplement the original instrument with
additional matter; its function is enlarging, and it operates to extend or
clarify the scope of what has been set forth. Therefore, while a
corrigendum cures, an addendum augments. The two are not
interchangeable. The issuance of a corrigendum is legally permissible
only to rectify clerical or typographical errors, or to correct accidental slips
or omissions, so that the record reflects the true intention of the authority
at the time of the original order. The issue in the present case is whether
the letter dated 29.03.2022 can be considered a corrigendum or to be
considered an addendum and even if at this stage it is assumed to be in
the form of corrigendum, can it alter the concluded tariff determination since
FY 2010-2011.
22. The doctrine of functus officio and the principle of finality of orders
restrain a regulatory authority from altering its concluded tariff orders when
such an order has been acted upon and rights have crystallized. We also
take note that corrigendum letter dated 29.03.2022 have been issued in the
case of TEC for ISP as water utilisation(Q) unit has been mentioned in
both MAFt (Million Acre Feet) and BM³ (Billion Cubic Metres), however in
the original TEC for ‘OSP project, the water utilisation (Q) has been
mentioned only in MAFt, however energy calculations have been done
considering water utilisation in BM3, same as that of ISP and Respondent
No.2 - MPPMCL has accepted such a determination since its
Page 14 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
commissioning. The tariff orders are quasi-judicial determinations passed
under statutory mandate. Once such orders have been subjected to
true-up, appellate scrutiny, or have otherwise attained finality, they merge
into the regulatory continuum.
23. The corrigendum letter dated 29.03.2022 purports to change the
unit of water utilisation in a Techno-Economic Clearance (TEC) issued four
decades earlier for ISP, substituting BM³ with MAFt. Such a change,
though ostensibly clerical, has substantive consequences because it alters
the design energy computation, which in turn impacts tariff determination.
Once tariff orders have been passed, subjected to appellate scrutiny, and
implemented over the years, they cannot, prima facie, be reopened
retrospectively on the even on the strength of a corrigendum.
24. It is also pertinent to note that Respondent-MPPMCL had disputed
the unit of water utilisation considered in the tariff petition for determination
of tariff for the year 2014-19 and MPPMCL vide letter dated 17.05.2021,
and MPPMCL, approached the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) seeking
a review of the TEC for ISP, which subsequently resulted in the issue of
corrigendum letter dated 29.03.2022 . The Central Commission in its order
dated 06.01.2022, passed in the proceedings to truing up of Annual Fixed
Charges for the tariff period 2014-19 and for determination of tariff for the
tariff period 2019-24, observed that the ongoing development stage would
cease in 2024 as per Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal ( “NWDT”) Award
and as the firm Power/energy and secondary energy generation will also
be subjected to review based on actual available data. Accordingly, the
Central Commission held that MPPMCL’s prayer for the revision of TEC of
the project was not warranted at that stage, and no revision of design
energy was undertaken.
Page 15 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
25. However, under the Impugned Order, design energy for both ISP &
OSP has been re-determined with retrospective effect from FY 2010-2011
onwards, that is, prior to conclusion of ongoing development stage. While
the rival submissions of the parties would require detailed examination at
the stage of final hearing, we are prima facie of the view that permitting
such retrospective alteration, at the interim stage, would have the effect of
unsettling vested rights, and undermine regulatory certainty.
26. As noticed hereinabove, both MPPMCL and the Appellant have
acted for several years on the basis of the TEC then in force, and the
determination and settlement of design energy and secondary energy have
been carried out accordingly. Any retrospective revision of such
foundational parameters would have significant regulatory and financial
consequences. In these circumstances, and having regard to the
observations recorded above, we are satisfied that the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the Appellant. It is also noted that the
Appellant has stated that it has commenced computation of design energy
in accordance with the corrigendum prospectively.
27. For the reasons delineated above, we are satisfied that the
Appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection
and that the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. Accordingly,
operation of the Impugned Order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Central
Commission, insofar as it directs payment of reconciled amount, is hereby
stayed, pending adjudication of the appeal on merits. We also make it clear
that the present order shall not affect any payment already made by the
Appellant to MPPMCL in compliance with the Impugned Order, and status
quo in respect thereof shall be maintained.
Page 16 of 17

Order in IA No. 1337 of 2026 in Appeal No. 329 of 2026
Needless to state that this interim arrangement is provisional and
shall be subject to the final determination of the issues arising in the
appeal. All observations made in this order are prima facie and shall not
prejudice the rights and contentions of either party at the stage of final
hearing. The Interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2026
Respondents are granted six weeks to file Reply to the Appeal and
Appellant to file rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter. Registry to
verify and after completion of pleadings and, thereafter, the Appeal to be
included in the ‘List of Finals’ to be taken up from there in their turn.
nd
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 02 DAY OF
NOVEMBER, 2026.
(Virender Bhat)
Judicial Member
(Seema Gupta)
Officiating Chairperson
REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE
Pr/ak/ag
Page 17 of 17