DISTRIBUTED SOLAR POWER ASSOCIATION THRU SIGNATORY ITS AUTHORISES ADITYA MALPANI vs MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION — WP/2238/2026

Case under Bombay Transit of Forest-produce (Vidarbha Region [* * *] Rules Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020121672026

Filing Number

WP/12167/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/2238/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Division

Category

ELECTRICITY ( 13 )

Sub-Category

MAH. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Transit of Forest-produce (Vidarbha Region [* * *] Rules Section 226
Electricity Act 2003

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DISTRIBUTED SOLAR POWER ASSOCIATION THRU SIGNATORY ITS AUTHORISES ADITYA MALPANI

    Adv. Trilegal

  2. 2.AMPIN ENERGY GREEN FIFTEEN PVT. LTD.

  3. 3.RADIANCE MH SUNRISE NINE PRIVATE LIMITED

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

  2. 2.MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla,hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by solar power companies challenging MERC's electricity tariff review order, ruling that the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (appeal to APTEL). The court found the MERC order was reasoned and properly considered stakeholder objections regarding Time-of-Day tariffs and banking provisions, and directed petitioners to approach APTEL within 6 weeks with condonation of any delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla,hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla,hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

  7. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice B.P. Colabawalla,hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

  8. 09-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/2238/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by solar power companies challenging MERC's electricity tariff review order, ruling that the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (appeal to APTEL). The court found the MERC order was reasoned and properly considered stakeholder objections regarding Time-of-Day tariffs and banking provisions, and directed petitioners to approach APTEL within 6 weeks with condonation of any delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case