Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: September 3, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/S. Amalgam Steels and Power Ltd. (and anr); Respondents – Energy Watchdog and others. The dispute also involves Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL).
  • Background: On 17‑05‑2012 Amalgam entered into a Captive Power Plant (CPP) Agreement with JBVNL to supply surplus power to its associate (petitioner no.2). The agreement was renewed in 2017 and 2023.
  • Complaint: Energy Watchdog filed a complaint on 15‑04‑2024 with the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy, Jharkhand, alleging that the associate was using power without a valid ‘captive user’ status under Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, and without Open Access Approval.
  • Statutory Action: Respondent invoked Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, on 28‑06‑2024 the Government of Jharkhand and JBVNL initiated a fact‑finding inquiry against the petitioners.
  • Public Interest Litigation: Energy Watchdog filed PIL No. 3347 of 2025 in the High Court of Jharkhand, seeking a declaration that the power supply was illegal, a detailed investigation, and recovery of loss to the state utility.
  • Show‑Cause Notices: On 26‑08‑2025 JBVNL issued show‑cause notices to the petitioners, alleging breach of the CPP Agreement, supply without JBVNL’s consent, and violation of JBVNL’s right of first refusal. JBVNL also demanded cross‑subsidy surcharges of Rs 176.74 crore from Amalgam (petitioner 1) and Rs 108.17 crore from its associate (petitioner 2).
  • High Court Interim Order: The petitioners filed an interlocutory application challenging the maintainability of the PIL. The High Court, by an interim order dated 05‑02‑2026, rejected the objection, holding that the affidavit of JBVNL disclosed prima facie substance in the allegation and that Energy Watchdog should be heard alongside the petitioners in the JBVNL proceedings.
  • Special Leave Petition: Amalgam filed SLP (C) No. 10538/2026 against the High Court interim order. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed after the High Court had directed the matter to be heard further and that the Court had already issued a notice on 23‑03‑2026 directing the parties to maintain status‑quo.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Petitioners: Senior Counsel Dr. A.M. Singhvi argued that Energy Watchdog is a stranger with no legal injury and cannot be a person aggrieved; he contended that the Electricity Act is a comprehensive code and the High Court should not expand it by permitting third‑party intervention.
  • Respondent: Counsel Mr. Prashant Bhushan highlighted non‑payment of the cross‑subsidy surcharge and asserted that the demand was raised under Jharkhand Open Access Rules, seeking no interference with the High Court order.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: The Court referred to PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Anr. v. Green Infra Wind Solutions Ltd. & Ors., emphasizing that the Electricity Act is exhaustive and that regulatory matters lie within the ambit of the Central and State Electricity Commissions.
  • Statutory Provisions Discussed: Sections 79, 86, 94 of the Electricity Act were outlined, detailing the functions of the Central Commission, State Commission, and the power to authorise representation of consumer interests.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s interim order allowing Energy Watchdog to participate in the JBVNL proceedings.
  • The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute and that the High Court will consider all aspects, including third‑party intervention, at the final hearing.
  • The Special Leave Petition is disposed of, and any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Topics: Electricity Regulation, Judicial Intervention