Gujarat wind-energy priority clause survives second challenge
The 2010 WTG-first principle and 85% deemed-sale rule remain valid after the review dismissal. Utilities can continue settlement under the 2024 hierarchy.
Tribunal affirms earlier sequencing order
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed Review Petition No. 11 of 2025 filed by Investment & Precision Castings Ltd (IPCL) against its 3 December 2024 judgment in Appeal 339 of 2018.
That earlier judgment had re-sequenced GujaratтАЩs multi-source energy accounting, giving first priority to wind-turbine generation (WTG), followed by Short-Term Open Access (STOA) energy, and finally distribution supply from PGVCL.
With the latest order dated 3 November 2025, the bench of Mr Virender Bhat (Judicial Member) and Ms Seema Gupta (Technical Member-Electricity) has reaffirmed the 2010 WTG-first clause and the 85 % deemed-sale pricing rule for monthly surplusesтАФclosing a multi-year challenge.
ConsumerтАЩs banking-loss argument rejected
IPCL alleged a financial loss of тВ╣ 30.65 lakh in denied six-month banking benefit and тВ╣ 3.37 lakh from curtailed deemed-sale credit.
The petitioner claimed APTELтАЩs 2024 formula ignored historical wheeling agreements (2006 and 2010) and the 2002 banking policy, terming it a тАЬmanifest error.тАЭ
The Tribunal disagreed, holding that the petition sought to substitute methodology rather than correct a self-evident mistakeтАФand therefore amounted to an appeal in disguise. Only patent or apparent errors qualify for review, not interpretive disagreements.
Law of review strictly applied
Citing Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Supreme Court precedentsтАФKamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) and S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022)тАФthe Tribunal reiterated that review powers extend solely to тАЬglaring omissions or mistakes apparent on the record.тАЭ
Erroneous decisions must be corrected through appeal, not re-hearing.
Finding no fresh evidence or self-evident error, the bench declined jurisdiction to reopen the case.
APTEL concluded that no patent mistake or omission existed in its December 2024 ruling, dismissing the review petition without costs.
For GujaratтАЩs distribution licensees, the decision secures continuity of the 2024 settlement hierarchyтАФ
1я╕ПтГг WTG energy first (2010 WTG before 2006 WTG, surplus sold at 85 %),
2я╕ПтГг then STOA energy,
3я╕ПтГг and finally PGVCL supply.
For captive consumers, it clarifies that banking-benefit or tariff-valuation disputes must be raised before the regulator or via statutory appeal, not through review.
With Review Petition 11 of 2025 now disposed of, APTELтАЩs wind-energy priority formula attains procedural finality unless overturned under Section 125 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Supreme Court.
The case underscores that review jurisdiction in IndiaтАЩs power-sector tribunals is governed by procedural precision, not equity or commercial impact.
For more https://www.energylineindia.com/