As per case facts, APNRL was to supply power using coal from its captive Ganeshpur block, which was crucial to the PPA/PSA. The block was not operationalized, leading APNRL to ... source coal from alternate methods (tapering linkage, e-auction, imports) at higher costs. The Supreme Court's judgment cancelled coal block allocations, including Ganeshpur, followed by new legislation. APNRL sought compensation for increased fuel costs, claiming "Change in Law." CERC allowed some compensation but denied the "Change in Law" claim. APTEL upheld the compensation for alternate sourcing and reversed CERC, granting "Change in Law" compensation. The appeal to the Supreme Court was to challenge APTEL's order regarding "Change in Law" compensation and compensation for alternate coal sourcing before the "Change in Law" event. The question arose whether the coal block cancellation and subsequent legislation constituted a "Change in Law" under the PPA/PSA and if compensation for alternate coal sourcing was applicable before this event. Finally, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming that the cancellation of the coal block was a "Change in Law" event entitling APNRL to compensation from the judgment date. However, it set aside the compensation for procurement from e-auction/imports *prior* to the "Change in Law" event, holding Article 2.5 applied during that period.