VINDHYACHAL HYDRO POWER PVT LTDversusKHED ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD AND ORS

                                                                        905-WP-12496-2026.DOC

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 12496 OF 2026


                      M/s. Vindhyachal Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.                   ..Petitioner

                              Versus

                      Khed Economic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. &          …Respondents
                      Ors.


                      Ms. Deepa P Chawan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ravindra R Chile,
                           Ms. Siddhi Dawne, i/b Mr. Prashant Nakati, for the
                           Petitioner.

                      Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Jatin Pore, Ms.
                           Gargi Patil, Mr. Vishal Mandal, Ms. Medha Tiwari, i/b
                           DSK Legal, for Respondent No.1.


                                                 CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE     :    01st OCTOBER 2026

                      P.C.:
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.03
14:51:37 +0530

                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the

                      Maharashtra        Water    Resources       Regulatory      Authority

                      (“Regulatory Authority”) on 28th July, 2026 in an appeal

                      preferred by the Respondent No.1, being Case No.03/2025, and

                      a suo motu corrigendum thereto issued by the Regulatory

                      Authority on 30th July, 2026.




                      SAINATH, PA                        1/4
                                                    905-WP-12496-2026.DOC

3.      A perusal of the impugned order and the order dated 19 th

January, 2026, passed by the Regulatory Authority, fairly

indicates that, the Regulatory Authority initially considered it

appropriate to hear the parties and pass an order on the

admissibility of the appeal, against the order passed by the

Primary Dispute Resolution Officer (“PDRO”).

4.      However, in the first impugned order dated 28th July, 2026,

the Regulatory Authority whilst holding that, the appeal against

the order impugned before the Regulatory Authority cannot be

admitted, went on to pass directions which were apparently in

the nature of modification of the order passed by the PDRO.

5.      By the corrigendum dated 30th July, 2026, the Regulatory

Authority     professed   to   dispose    the   appeal,   being    Case

No.3/2025, at the stage of admission with the directions

incorporated in clauses (1) and (2) thereof, which were verbatim

reproduction of the clauses (1) and (2) in the first order dated

28th July 2026.

6.      The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the parties

were put to notice that, the appeal would be heard on the point

of admissibility, and whilst holding that the Appeal was not

maintainable, the Regulatory Authority has passed orders on

merits, and no opportunity of hearing was given to the


SAINATH, PA                         2/4
                                                        905-WP-12496-2026.DOC

petitioner when the Regulatory Authority proceeded to sou motu

review the order dated 28th July, 2026, by way of corrigendum.

7.      In       these   circumstances   and   having    regard     to   the

provisions contained in Section 22(3) of the Maharashtra Water

Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005 and the pendency of

the dispute in regard to lifting of the water from a particular

point, it would be expedient that, the Regulatory Authority

decides the appeal on merits after providing an efficacious

opportunity of hearing to the parties in a time frame so as to

resolve the disputes, once and for all.

8.      The Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed with the following

directions :-

         (i)      The impugned order dated 28 th July 2026 as

         well as the order dated 30 th July 2026, by way of

         corrigendum, stand quashed and set aside.

         (ii)     The Appeal, being Case No.3/2025, stands

         restored to the file of Regulatory Authority.

         (iii)    The Regulatory Authority is requested to hear

         and decide the appeal on merits and, in accordance

         with law, after providing an effective opportunity of

         hearing to the parties, as expeditiously as possible




SAINATH, PA                              3/4
                                                     905-WP-12496-2026.DOC

         and, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the

         date of communication of this order.

         (iv)   The Regulatory Authority shall decide the

         appeal without being influenced by any of the

         observations    made    by   this   Court   as   well   as

         observations in the impugned order.

         (v)    All contentions of all the parties are kept open

         for consideration.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                           4/4