A non-party may appeal only by establishing that the order prejudicially affects its rights.

Torrent Power Limited, a distribution licensee, petitioned the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking refund of past short-term open-access (STOA) charges and uniform treatment in the future.

The Commission directed GETCO to apply the open-access mechanism without discrimination and to verify and refund specified STOA charges recovered from Torrent Power.

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and four State distribution licensees, who had not been parties to that proceeding, sought leave to appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

They contended that the refund would increase their residual transmission-charge burden and that the Commission had considered a transmission service agreement to which they were signatories.

Whether non-parties to proceedings before the Commission may obtain leave to appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and what they must establish to qualify as “persons aggrieved”

Whether the appellants were sufficiently affected by the Commission’s directions concerning STOA charges to be granted leave to appeal

Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 permits a “person aggrieved” by an order of the Appropriate Commission to appeal to the Tribunal.

A person who was not a party to the original proceedings must obtain leave and demonstrate that the order prejudicially affects a right or causes actual harm; a merely psychological, imaginary, remote, or indirect injury is insufficient.

The Tribunal applied the principles stated in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183, including that leave should ordinarily be granted to a non-party who would be bound by the decision and precluded from challenging it in other proceedings.

The Tribunal also considered Emmar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Appeal No. 123 of 2008, and Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham, (1965) 1 SCR 542, but found them distinguishable.

The Tribunal found that the Commission’s order issued directions to GETCO, not to the appellants, and that Torrent Power had sought no relief against them.

The refund concerned charges recovered despite Torrent Power’s alleged non-use of GETCO’s intra-State network; GETCO had verified the refund claim and found it in order.

The asserted increase in the appellants’ residual transmission burden did not establish that they were harmed by the order.

The appellants had opportunities to participate in the relevant proceedings but did not seek impleadment, and the order did not make any operative determination concerning the transmission service agreement.

Accordingly, their asserted interest was, at most, remote or indirect.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable; the Tribunal clarified that its observations were confined to the leave application and were not findings on the merits.