Interim relief mimicking final prayer is impermissible; cryptic tribunal orders lacking reasoning necessitate fresh adjudication.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prayer for an interim direction to set up a Letter of Credit should be granted when it is identical to the final relief sought in the main appeal?

The court held

The Tribunal declined to grant the specific interim prayers at this stage to avoid granting final relief through an interlocutory order

It also directed

The Tribunal resolved to take up the main appeal for final disposal and directed the parties to show cause why the matter should not be remanded to the APERC for a fresh, reasoned adjudication after considering all rival submissions

The matter was listed for further hearing on August 5, 2026

01Facts

The Appellant, Green Infra Wind Solutions Limited, filed a petition (O.P. No. 60 of 2019) before the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) seeking the recovery of unpaid monthly bills for power supply, carrying costs, late payment surcharge (LPS), and the establishment of a payment security mechanism (Letter of Credit) as mandated under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated February 18, 2017

p. 3

The APERC disposed of the petition on July 7, 2021, holding that the prayers regarding payments were infructuous due to interim tariffs fixed by the High Court, and deemed the prayer for a Letter of Credit "ancillary," postponing its adjudication until the disposal of pending Writ Appeals

pp. 4-5

The Appellant challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), filing an interim application (IA No. 1488 of 2021) seeking directions for immediate payment and the opening of a Letter of Credit

pp. 2-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prayer for an interim direction to set up a Letter of Credit should be granted when it is identical to the final relief sought in the main appeal?

p. 9 / para. 8

ii.2. Whether the APERC failed to discharge its statutory functions by passing a cryptic and perfunctory order without adjudicating on the merits of the claims?

p. 9 / para. 9

03Law Applied

The Tribunal's considerations centered on the statutory duties of a Regulatory Commission under Sections 86(1)(f) and 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which involve adjudicating disputes between licensees and generating companies

pp. 7-8

It applied the procedural principle that interim relief should generally not be granted if it is identical to the final relief sought in the appeal, as such an act would prejudge the merits

p. 9

the court relied on the administrative law principle that quasi-judicial orders must be "reasoned" and "speaking orders," reflecting a proper inquiry into the facts and rival contentions

p. 6, 9

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 86

04Reasoning

The Tribunal observed that the APERC’s impugned order was "cryptic and sans any reasons," failing to discuss the rival contentions of the parties or the specific obligations under the PPA

p. 9

Regarding the Appellant's specific plea for an interim Letter of Credit (LC), the Tribunal noted that this prayer in the IA was identical to the final relief sought in the appeal; thus, granting it as an interim measure would prematurely award final relief

p. 9

the Tribunal expressed "concern" over the "perfunctory manner" in which the Commission dismissed the substantive claims—specifically the claim that payments were not even being made at the interim tariff rate and that the LC obligation was independent of the tariff dispute

p. 6, 9

the Tribunal decided that rather than granting interim relief, the appeal itself needed urgent final disposal to address the Commission's failure to provide a reasoned order

p. 9