In Brief
The Supreme Court clarified that State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) cannot entertain petitions on the singular ground of public interest alone. A resident challenged a distribution franchisee agreement before the UP ERC, claiming violation of tariff laws and Section 17 (license transfer). The Court held that Section 128 investigations require satisfaction that a licensee has breached license conditions or violated the Act—mere public interest allegations are insufficient. The Act does not authorize direct regulatory oversight of franchisees; they are regulated indirectly through the distribution licensee as their principal. Any investigation can only proceed against the licensee, not the franchisee directly. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ERC's order and the APTEL's confirmation thereof.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.