The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed a review petition filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) concerning a tariff dispute over a 50 MW solar power project in Kasaragod, Kerala. The order was pronounced on November 10, 2025, by the Tribunal bench consisting of Judicial Member Mr. Virender Bhat and Technical Member Ms. Seema Gupta. The case involved IREDA, the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL), and the Renewable Power Corporation of Kerala Limited (RPCKL).
The dispute centered around the tariff fixed for the project, which was commissioned in September 2017 at a total cost of Rs. 310.88 crores. Initially, IREDA requested a tariff of Rs. 4.95 per unit from the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC). However, in February 2019, the Commission determined a lower tariff of Rs. 3.83 per unit. IREDA then appealed against this decision in Appeal No. 141 of 2021, mainly contesting the disallowance of Rs. 25.38 crores that the agency had paid to RPCKL in two installments in 2017 and 2018. IREDA argued that this amount should have been included in the total project cost for tariff determination since it was spent on infrastructure development.
During the hearing of the original appeal on February 10, 2022, IREDA’s counsel made a significant statement before the Tribunal. After taking instructions from IREDA officials, the counsel informed the Tribunal that the disputed Rs. 25.38 crores was paid under a separate contractual arrangement and not as part of the project cost. Based on this statement, IREDA decided not to pursue the issue for tariff purposes and instead sought liberty to recover the amount from RPCKL through an appropriate forum. The Tribunal accepted this submission, granted the liberty requested, and marked the issue as “not pressed” in its final judgment.
Subsequently, IREDA filed Review Petition No. 15 of 2023, claiming that its counsel’s 2022 statement was factually incorrect. IREDA argued that the payment of Rs. 25.38 crores covered the complete infrastructure cost, including land use, and not just power evacuation. The agency further stated that it discovered the relevant Land Use Agreement and Implementation Agreement with RPCKL only after the 2022 judgment and that these documents clarified the true nature of the expenditure.
However, the Tribunal found no merit in IREDA’s claims and rejected the review petition. It was observed that the counsel’s statement in 2022 had been made after proper instructions from IREDA and that the organization itself had already identified the Land Use and Implementation Agreements in January 2022 while preparing responses to the Tribunal’s queries. The Tribunal therefore concluded that IREDA was aware of these documents before the final judgment and had an opportunity to present them at that time.
APTEL further explained that a review of judgment is only allowed if new and significant evidence emerges that was previously unknown despite due diligence, or if there is a clear error on the face of the record. Since IREDA already possessed the information and its counsel’s statement was accepted as binding, the Tribunal ruled that the conditions for review were not met. Accordingly, the review petition filed by IREDA was dismissed.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
