APTEL Failed To Consider Larger Public Interest For Disposal Of Huge Quantity Of Waste Generated In Delhi: SC Upholds MCD’s Tariff Adoption Process For Waste-To-Energy Project
The Supreme Court has upheld the tariff and bidding process for the WTE project proposed by the MCD while observing that APTEL failed to consider the larger public interest for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the city of Delhi.
The Court quashed the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) Judgment that set aside the orders of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC). The DERC had dismissed the Petition filed by Waste to Energy Research & Technology Council (WTERT) challenging the authority of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD/Appellant) to issue the tariff-based bid and Request for Proposal for setting up the Waste to Energy (WTE) project at Narela Bawana, Delhi.
The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “APTEL has grossly erred in treating the present Appellant-MCD as a total stranger. The WTE project was on Design, Build, Finance and Operate basis. The ownership of the said Project was always to be with the Appellant-MCD and the operation of the facility is required to be transferred back to the Appellant-MCD after 25 years. The reasoning given by the APTEL, that if the application of the Appellant-MCD for adoption of tariff was held to be tenable, then it would amount to permitting any stranger to apply under Section 63 of the Act, is factually not correct.”
Senior Advocate Ramji Srinivasan represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate B.V. Patil appeared for the Respondents.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the application under Section 63 of the the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) could have been made by the MCD which is a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 2(41) of the Act.
The Court noted that Section 63 of the Act allowed the Appropriate Commission to adopt tariffs determined through a transparent bidding process, without restricting applicants to distribution licensees or generating companies. It reiterated that judicial interpretation must not add words or impose conditions absent in the statutory text.
“It can thus be seen that the provisions of Section 86(1)(e) of the Act read with Rule 6.4 of the Tariff Policy provide for promoting cogeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution licensee,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court held, “The APTEL also failed to take into consideration that the WTE project in question was in the larger public interest thereby providing for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the city of Delhi.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Municipal Corporation Of Delhi v. Gagan Narang & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 2)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ramji Srinivasan; AOR Nikunj Dayal; Advocates Swapna Seshadri, Utkarsh Singh, Sneha Singh Baghel, Namrata Saraogi and Parth Bhalla
Respondents: Senior Advocate B.V. Patil; Advocates Krishna M. Singh, Anil C Nishani, Deepti Singh, Anand Kumar Shrivastava, Priya Goyal, Eesha Sharma, Buddy Ranganathan, Dushyant Manocha, Brian Henry Moses, Mrinalini Mishra, Molshree Bhatnaagar, Deepak Thukar and Punyam Bhutani; AOR Aditya Ranjan, Ishita Jain, Anannya Ghosh, Suresh Chandra Tripathy and Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar
