Section 86(1)(f) vests exclusive jurisdiction over licensee–generator disputes in the State Commission, including interim relief.

The petitioner sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain invocation of performance, VGF and connectivity bank guarantees totalling approximately ₹52.20 crore, and for their return.

The dispute arose from a BESS project for which the petitioner alleged that the respondents had failed to provide the full 10 acres of project land required under the PPA. The petitioner terminated the PPA and maintained that no default by it entitled the respondents to invoke the guarantees.

The respondents objected, among other grounds, that disputes between the parties fell within the jurisdiction of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the PPA excluded arbitration where the disputed amount exceeded ₹25 crore.

The High Court considered these objections as the principal questions bearing on maintainability.

1. Whether the High Court could entertain a Section 9 application concerning disputes between the parties, given Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. Whether the dispute concerning bank guarantees valued cumulatively at more than ₹25 crore was arbitrable under the PPA’s dispute-resolution provisions.

Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 gives the State Electricity Regulatory Commission jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between licensees and generating companies or to refer them to arbitration; under Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755, that statutory mechanism prevails over inconsistent general arbitration procedures, and the Commission determines whether to adjudicate or refer the dispute.

Sections 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act are to be read harmoniously: the Act prevails where an express or implied conflict exists, while both statutes apply where there is no conflict.

Section 94(2) empowers the Commission to make interim orders, and Sections 86(1)(f), 94(2) and 158, read together, permit interim protection akin to relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Separately, paragraph C of Annexure A to the PPA’s arbitration clause permits arbitration only where the disputed amount does not exceed ₹25 crore; disputes above that threshold must pursue remedies other than arbitration under applicable law.

Applying Gujarat Urja, the Court held that disputes between the petitioner and the respondents fell within the SERC’s statutory domain, and that the Commission could provide interim relief while deciding the dispute or referring it to arbitration.

The Court also found that the petitioner itself valued the guarantees at approximately ₹52.20 crore and sought both protection from their invocation and their return. The dispute therefore exceeded the PPA’s ₹25-crore arbitration threshold; it could not be treated as outside the threshold merely because the petitioner sought injunctive relief rather than recovery of money.

The Court consequently found the Section 9 petition not maintainable before it. It did not determine the parties’ substantive disputes concerning the land, termination or entitlement to invoke the guarantees.

It dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, while requesting the SERC to disregard any observations on the merits.