APTEL Stays NHDC’s ₹156.13-Crore Refund To MP Power Buyer Pending Appeal Over Retrospective Hydro Design-Energy Revision

NHDC operates the Indira Sagar Project (ISP) and Omkareshwar Project (OSP).

The Central Electricity Authority’s techno-economic clearance (TEC) for ISP, issued in 1984, referred to the water-utilisation parameter “Q” in BM³; a corrigendum dated 29 March 2022 stated that BM³ should be read as MAFt.

M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. (MPPMCL) then sought revision of the projects’ Design Energy and Firm Power.

By order dated 30 March 2026, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) allowed retrospective recalculation and directed NHDC to refund the reconciled differential amount—Rs. 156.13 crore—in 12 interest-free instalments.

NHDC appealed and sought a stay, contending that the corrigendum could not reopen concluded tariff determinations.

APTEL considered the application for interim relief, not the appeal on its merits.

Interlocutory relief is assessed by considering whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours relief, and whether refusal would cause irreparable injury; the Tribunal cited *Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur*, *Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation*, *Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.*, and other authorities for this framework.

The Tribunal also stated, on a prima facie basis, that a corrigendum may correct clerical or typographical errors or accidental slips so as to reflect the authority’s original intention, but a substantive alteration affecting concluded tariff determinations raises issues of finality and functus officio.

These observations were expressly provisional and did not determine the appeal’s merits.

The Tribunal noted that the 2022 corrigendum changed the stated unit of water utilisation in ISP’s TEC and that the resulting recalculation affected Design Energy and the classification of energy, with financial consequences.

It further observed that the parties had proceeded for years on the basis of the existing TEC and tariff determinations, and that the CERC’s order required retrospective revision from FY 2010–11.

At the interim stage, the Tribunal considered that allowing the refund direction to operate could unsettle settled rights and regulatory certainty.

It therefore found a prima facie case and balance of convenience in NHDC’s favour, while reserving all merits questions for the appeal.

The stay does not affect payments NHDC had already made; the status quo in respect of those payments is to be maintained.

The Tribunal clarified that its observations are prima facie and do not prejudice either party at the final hearing.

The application was disposed of, and the respondents were granted six weeks to file their appeal reply, followed by four weeks for NHDC’s rejoinder, if any.