Tariff Fixed At Registration For Entire 25-Year Term; CSPDCL Waived Its Entitlement: Delhi High Court Allows IREDA’s Appeal In GBI Scheme Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that, under the 2010 Generation Based Incentive framework of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the tariff prevailing when a solar project is registered is the only rate relevant for the entire twenty-five-year incentive period, and any later upward tariff adjustment made by a State Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot alter that benchmark. Applying this principle, the Bench rejected the claim raised by the state distribution utility in its dispute with IREDA over GBI calculations, finding no basis to demand benefits linked to a retrospectively revised tariff and declining to grant the relief sought.
The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy issued Guidelines dated 16.06.2010 for the Rooftop PV & Small Solar Power Generation Programme, providing Generation Based Incentive (GBI) to distribution utilities purchasing solar power. Under the Scheme, project developers, distribution utilities, and the Programme Administrator—IREDA—were assigned specific roles. Clause 1.4 of MoU-2 between IREDA and the distribution utility prescribed that GBI would be computed as the difference between the tariff determined by CERC and the applicable Base Rate, which remained constant for 25 years.
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (respondent No.1 before the Division Bench) entered into MoU-1 with project developers for tariff determined by CSERC and later executed MoU-2 with IREDA on 26.04.2011 for GBI disbursement. The project was registered on 17.09.2010. CERC determined tariff for Solar PV at Rs.17.91/kWh, while CSERC had fixed Rs.15.84/kWh.
IREDA initially released GBI at Rs.12.24/kWh (Rs.17.91 – Rs.5.67) but subsequently communicated on 22.06.2012 that the applicable tariff should be Rs.15.84/kWh, and excess payment would be adjusted. The Ministry’s Committee for Removal of Difficulties, in its meeting on 15.03.2013, decided that the tariff at the time of project registration—Rs.15.84/kWh—shall be considered for GBI for 25 years. This decision was conveyed on 29.04.2013.
The distribution utility approached CSERC and later the Appellate Tribunal raising issues related to tariff and GBI, but its claims were rejected by orders dated 02.01.2015 and 23.09.2015. Thereafter, it wrote several letters to IREDA seeking recalculation of GBI using Rs.17.91/kWh. On 15.05.2017, it filed W.P.(C) 4527/2017 before the Single Judge, seeking calculation of GBI on the basis of CERC tariff and payment of the differential amount with interest. The Single Judge allowed the petition on 21.05.2025.
The appellants—IREDA and the Ministry—challenged the order in these intra-court appeals, asserting waiver, acquiescence, delay, laches, and binding effect of the Committee's decision.
The Court recorded that Clause 8 of the Guidelines empowered the Committee to take decisions only “in a situation where difficulty arises either in giving effect to any provision of this Scheme/Guidelines or in relation to interpretation of the said Scheme/Guidelines.” It further observed that “while taking such a decision under its power… the Scheme itself cannot be altered; neither any clause of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU-2) can be changed.” The Bench stated that the Guidelines expressly provided that “the GBI shall be equal to the difference between the tariff determined by the CERC and the base rate,” whereas the Committee’s decision substituted CERC tariff with the SERC tariff, which “will amount to re-writing the Guidelines issued by the Ministry.”
The Court stated that MoU-2 also mandated computation based on CERC tariff, and “the terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties thus, was beyond the scope of the change or alteration by Committee constituted under Clause 8.” It recorded that the Committee could only address difficulties and not modify foundational components of the Scheme.
On the issue of waiver and acquiescence, the Court observed that waiver constituted “abandonment of a right in such a way that the other party is entitled to plead the abandonment,” referring to Supreme Court precedent. It stated that waiver “must always be an intentional act with knowledge,” and may also be implied when a party’s conduct renders enforcement inequitable.
The Court noted that the respondent had not challenged the Committee’s decision dated 15.03.2013, had expressly accepted in its letter dated 28.06.2013 that it was bound to pay power purchase rates based on Rs.15.84/kWh, and had also litigated the issue before CSERC and APTEL unsuccessfully. The Court recorded that the plea of mistaken understanding before APTEL further demonstrated waiver.
It also stated that the writ petition filed in 2017 was delayed, and that “any claim put forth for recovery of monies would not be entertainable… if such a claim by way of suit… would be barred by limitation,” citing Tilokchand and Motichand. The Bench lastly noted that although the Single Judge recorded the argument of estoppel, “no finding on this plea has been returned,” which was an error.
The Court directed that “the claim put forth by the respondent No.1 – petitioner before the learned Single Judge by instituting the writ petition could not have been entertained for the reason that the respondent No.1 – petitioner had waived its right so pleaded by its conduct.”
“The appeals are, therefore, allowed.” The Court ordered that “the judgment and order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 4527/2017 is hereby set aside.” It concluded by directing that “the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner is dismissed,” and clarified that “there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners (Appellants): Mr. Raghavendra Shankar, ASG; Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Advocates;
Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC; Ms. Priya, Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Rebina, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate; Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Nitai Agarwal, Ms. Neha Mishra, Ms. Arshha, Mr. Shashwat Dubey, Advocates.
Case Title: IREDA & Ministry of New and Renewable Energy v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8958-CB
Case Number: LPA 434/2025 & LPA 468/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice; Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
