The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) lacked statutory authority to increase or revise supervision charges for self-executed electrical works without the statutory approval from the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).

Justice Ravi V. Hosmani passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Anushka Realty Inc., which had challenged the KPTCL’s June 2018 demand for payment of ₹1.02 crore as supervision charges for approving an 8459 KW power supply project, which was being undertaken under self-execution mode by the petitioner.

The petitioner had contended that the demand of ₹1.02 crore, based on a unilateral decision of the KPTCL to increase the supervision charges, violated the regulatory framework that capped such charges at ₹15 lakh.

The court rejected the KPTCL’s defence that the revision was an “administrative measure”, emphasising that a levy affecting consumer liability requires statutory backing.

“The levy of supervision charges affecting consumers and prescribing monetary liability cannot be regarded as purely administrative action, when Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulated procedure for such fixation,” the court pointed out.

Citing Sections 39 to 46 of the Act, the court said these provisions of law define the KPTCL’s role in transmission planning but do not confer power to determine or revise charges for supervising self-execution works. Only the KERC holds the authority to frame regulations under Section 181 of the Act, the court made it clear.

While quashing the KPTCL’s demand for ₹1.02 crore, the court directed it to permit the petitioner to complete the work on self-execution basis by paying charges as per the original regulatory cap, and refund excess payment made, if any, has to be refunded with 8% interest per annum.