In Brief
Haryana electricity distributors challenged regulatory orders awarding Adani Power (Mundra) tariff relief for coal supply shortfall under Change in Law provisions. The distributor argued the bid assumed 70% domestic and 30% imported coal, so relief should be limited to the domestic shortfall. The Supreme Court upheld the regulatory bodies' findings, holding that no bid document showed this explicit 70-30 split. Since the generator used all allocated domestic coal exclusively for the distributor's contracted power supply, restricting relief to a sub-portion of that linkage would be unjust and contrary to restitutionary principles. The Court also rejected arguments about altered methodology, finding the distributor had accepted the methodology before receiving final orders and could not now change position.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.