Judgment:
Justice Manju Goel, Judicial Member
01) The BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. the appellant in appeal No. 36 of 2008 and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. appellant in the present appeal No. 37 of 2008 challenged the tariff order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, arrayed as respondent No.1 in the two appeals, determining the aggregate revenue requirement for the FY 2008 to 2011 and distribution tariff for the period 01.03.08 to 31.03.09. The two appeals raise the same issues. The challenges to the two impugned orders, both dated 23.02.08, are also similar. We have decided the appeal No. 36 of 2008 vide our judgment dated 06.10.09.
02) Nonetheless we had invited the parties to make their submissions on any issue which may be different in appeal No. 37 of 2008. The learned counsel for the appellant mentioned the issues of RandM expenses and AandG expenses. The appellant’s grievance is that increased consumption has not been considered in granting AandG expenses. Mr. Haksar appearing for the Commission stated that the Commission has already contended that the appellant would be free to take any new initiatives in the MYT period provided such new initiatives are justified on cost benefit analysis. In other words, the Commission is willing to consider additional expenditure on new initiatives during the MYT period if the new initiatives are found to be justified. New initiatives also include the initiatives that are needed to cope with the increased consumer base. This is sufficient to take care of the appellant’s grievances. This issue has been dealt with in the same manner in our judgment in appeal No. 36 of 2008
03) So far as RandM expense is concerned we found that the Commission has determined the ‘k’ factor at 3.7% as the relationship between the gross fixed asset and RandM expenditure which is not less than what was prayed for by the appellant. The appellant had projected the RandM at 3% of GFA and 7% per annum increase. Thus the ‘k’ factor of 3.7% determined by the Commission cannot be a cause of grievance for the appellant. Therefore, we need not make any further order on RandM in this appeal.
04) All the issues involved in the present appeal have been settled in appeal No. 36 of 2008. All the dispensations given in our judgment in appeal No. 36 of 2008 shall apply in appeal No. 37 of 2008 and the judgment in appeal No. 36 of 2008 has to be read as judgment deciding the issues involved in appeal No. 37 of 2008.
05) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
06) With this the IA also stands disposed of.
07) Pronounced in open court on this 30th day of October, 2009.