APTEL Dismisses GRIDCO's Review Petition as Appeal in Disguise in Power Purchase Dispute with Vedanta
APTEL dismissed GRIDCO Limited's review petition challenging its September 2025 judgment on a revised PPA dispute with Vedanta, finding no error apparent on the face of record.
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dismissed a review petition filed by Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) on 5 May 2026, refusing to reopen its judgment dated 9 September 2025 in a long-running dispute over a revised Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Vedanta Limited. The two-member bench of Hon'ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member, and Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Talegaonkar, Technical Member, found that none of the five grounds raised by GRIDCO disclosed an error apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal held that the review petition was, in substance, an attempt to have the two underlying appeals reheard — precisely what review jurisdiction does not permit. Any challenge to the findings, the bench observed, lay by way of a statutory appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Dispute Before the Tribunal
GRIDCO is engaged in the bulk purchase and sale of power for the four distribution licensees in Odisha. The dispute traces back to an order dated 27 January 2016 passed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) in Case No.21/2015, which directed the parties to execute a revised PPA.
When Vedanta did not comply, GRIDCO filed Case No.68/2018 before the OERC seeking a direction for execution of the revised PPA. The Commission passed an order on 22 June 2020. Both Vedanta and GRIDCO challenged that order before APTEL — Vedanta in Appeal No.107 of 2022 and GRIDCO in Appeal No.312 of 2022.
By its common judgment dated 9 September 2025, APTEL allowed Vedanta's appeal and dismissed GRIDCO's appeal. The case was remanded to the Commission with a direction to call upon the parties to execute a revised PPA in accordance with their mutual agreement as per the 27 January 2016 order. The Tribunal also held that the compensation protocol for any short supply of power was to be governed by the Minutes of Meeting (MOM) dated 7 June 2019, agreed upon between the parties in the presence of the Director (Regulatory Affairs) of the Commission.
GRIDCO's Grounds for Review
GRIDCO raised five grounds in Review Petition No.28 of 2025. First, it contended that its detailed submissions during the hearing and in written submissions had neither been noticed nor considered. Second, it argued that the judgment rested solely on the premise that the MOM dated 7 June 2019 was paramount and carried the status of a PPA. Third, it challenged the finding that the Commission had no jurisdiction to devise a protocol for computation of compensation, calling it a patent error. Fourth, it disputed the observation in Paragraph 38 of the judgment that none of the parties had relied upon the MOM dated 1 November 2016 before the Commission, saying this was contrary to the record. Fifth, it contended that the findings in Paragraphs 37 to 41 and 44 — that since GRIDCO's petition was filed under Section 86(1)(f) and not Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, there was no occasion for regulatory intervention on the compensation mechanism — were internally inconsistent with Paragraphs 32 to 34 of the same judgment.
The Legal Framework for Review
The bench set out the governing legal framework at the outset. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the substantive basis for review, while Order XLVII Rule 1 specifies the permissible grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available despite due diligence; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason.
The Tribunal drew on the Supreme Court's summary of principles in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 320, which makes clear that review is not maintainable where the same relief sought at the main hearing was negatived, where the error has to be searched out by a process of reasoning, or where the petition is merely a repetition of overruled arguments. The bench also cited the Supreme Court's recent reiteration in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Anr. (2025 INSC 1080) that the power to review is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to rehearsing or substituting a different view.
The Tribunal stated the governing test plainly: an error apparent on the face of record is one that is self-evident and “staring in the eye.” An error that must be deduced through a process of reasoning does not qualify. Review can correct a patent mistake but cannot substitute a view merely because two views are possible.
How the Tribunal Reasoned on Each Ground
On the first ground — that GRIDCO's submissions were not considered — the bench pointed to Paragraphs 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 44 and 49 of the judgment under review, which it said reflected consideration of all contentions. The bench noted that the arguments of Vedanta had also not been set out specifically, yet the analysis spanning over 23 pages addressed every contention raised by both sides.
On the second ground concerning the MOM dated 7 June 2019, the Tribunal drew a distinction between a finding being erroneous and a finding suffering from an error apparent on the face of record. The judgment had given detailed reasoning for treating the compensation protocol in the MOM as part and parcel of the PPA. Whether that reasoning was wrong was a question for the Supreme Court on a statutory appeal, not for review before APTEL.
The same reasoning disposed of the third ground. The finding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to devise a compensation protocol had been reached after consideration of relevant facts and legal principles. GRIDCO's disagreement with that conclusion did not make it an apparent error.
On the fourth ground, the bench noted that the judgment itself, in Paragraph 38, had explained what led the Tribunal to observe that neither party appeared to have relied upon the MOM dated 1 November 2016 before the Commission. That explanation was contained within the judgment, and the contention that the observation was contrary to the record was therefore not accepted.
On the fifth ground — the alleged internal inconsistency between the findings on Section 86(1)(f) and the observations in Paragraphs 32 to 34 — the bench held that even if the contention were accepted for the sake of argument, it pointed only to an alleged error in reasoning, not to an error apparent on the face of record. Such a contention fell outside the domain of review jurisdiction.
The Penalty Clause Argument
GRIDCO also argued that the Tribunal had not considered its submissions in Appeal No.312 of 2022 regarding the incorporation of a stringent penalty clause in the PPA, in addition to a compensation clause. The bench rejected this, reiterating the settled position that a judgment cannot be assailed in review merely because every argument advanced by a party has not been expressly dealt with, so long as the final conclusion is based on consideration of the issues arising in the matter.
The bench added that the judgment under review had examined in detail whether the regulatory Commission could interfere in the PPA or in the agreement reached at the 7 June 2019 meeting, and had taken the view that the Commission cannot rewrite a contract even under the garb of regulatory powers. GRIDCO's contentions in Appeal No.312 of 2022 were therefore found to have no sanctity in law.
Outcome
The Tribunal found that the review petition was an attempt to have the two appeals reheard and to have a different view substituted for the one taken in the judgment dated 9 September 2025. It held that the petition was clearly an appeal in disguise. Review Petition No.28 of 2025 was dismissed on 5 May 2026. The bench noted that any challenge to the findings in the judgment of 9 September 2025 lay by way of a statutory appeal before the Supreme Court.