Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2009 passed in Misc. Application No. 06 of 2009 and the order dated 10th May, 2010 passed in Review Petition No. 967 of 2009 by the Gujarat State Electricity Commission, the Respondent No. 1 herein. The Respondent No. 2 is a consumers right organization in India and duly recognized by the Government of Gujarat, Respondent No. 3 is an institution registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and is running various educational institutions said to be on commercial basis at Vidyanagar, and espondent No. 4 is a State Government enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 and is a bulk purchaser of power in the State of Gujarat for sale to the distribution companies including the Appellant. The Respondent No. 3 is a high tension consumer (HT) of the Appellant. The said Respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement on 08.02.2007 with the Appellant for supply of electricity against 300 KVA cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Kerala High Tension (HT) and Extra High Tension (EHT) Industrial Electricity Consumers Association is the Appellant herein. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the tariff order passed by the Kerala State Commission dated 25.7.2012 wherein the State Commission determined the Retail Supply Tariff for the State of Kerala. 3. The short facts are as under: a) The Appellant is the consumers Association comprising of 166 nos. of consumers including more than 29 major industries. b) Out of the members of the Association of HT and EHT industries, about 31 industrial consumers have contracted for a maximum demand of more than 2000 KVA each with Kerala Electricity Board, the Second Respondent. c) Out of them, more than 20 industries draw power at the EHT level from the State Electricity Board. They are the subsidizing category of consumers for the Electricity Board. d) In the State of Kerala, High proportion of Hydel generation in the overall mix has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON The Appellants, The HT Industrial and Commercial Consumers aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission, have filed all these Appeals. By this Order, the State Commission dismissed the petitions in M.P. nos.4 and 7 of 2010, filed on behalf of the Appellants holding that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1st Respondent herein is entitled to collect Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges from H.T. Industrial and Commercial Consumers, the Appellants herein during the evening peak hours with respect to the quota fixed for the evening peak hours. 2. Since all these Appeals involve the same issues arising out of the same impugned order, a common judgment is being rendered. 3. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of these Appeals are given below: (i) The Appellants are the HT Industrial and Commercial consumers of electricity. The 1st Respondent is the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which supplies electr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. Appeal Nos. 102,103 and 112 of 2010 have been filed by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited respectively against the order dated 20th March, 2010 of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the Annual Revenue Requirements and Retail Supply Tariff for the Financial Year 2010-11 of the North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Limited, the distribution licensee. The State Commission is the respondent No. 1. The distribution licensee which supplies electricity to the appellants is the respondent no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The appellants are operating Ferro Alloy plants and are Extra High Voltage (EHT) consumers of respondent no.2/distribution licensee. Even though the appellants are the consumers of the distribution licensee, their premises are connected to the transmission lines and network of the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited, the transmiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The instant Appeal is directed against the impugned tariff order 2012-13, dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) for determination of railway traction tariff and bulk supply category to the Railway in Madhya Pradesh wherein the State commission had increased the Demand Charges for the Railway Traction supply for existing Rs.220/- per KVA to Rs. 265/- per KVA i.e. @ Rs.45/- per KVA and energy charges from Rs.4.70/KWH to Rs.5.00 /KWH i.e. @ Rs.0.30 per KWH unit for the year 2012-13, effective from 10.4.2012 based on the ARR and Tariff Applications made by the distribution licensees namely, Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (East Discom), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (West Discom) and Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (Central Discom), (Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein) in Petition No. 72/201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. against the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 passed by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) rejecting the Petition of the Appellant for re-determination of tariff of their two canal based Mini Hydro Power Plants and amendment of the concluded Power Purchase Agreement entered into with Haryana Power Purchase Centre for sale of power. 2. The Appellant is a generating company which has set up two small Canal based hydro power plants with installed capacity of 1.4 MW each. Haryana Power Purchase Centre which is responsible for procurement of power for the distribution licensees and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee are the Respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively. The State Commission is the Respondent no.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Haryana Renewable Energy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. As the issues involved were similar, we have heard the following six appeals together: 2. Appeal No. 41 of 2007 has been filed by BEST Undertaking (BEST in short), being an undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai initially against Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission in short) order dated April 02, 2007.Subsequently, by an amendment Tata Power Company Ltd. (TPC in short) Reliance Energy Ltd. (REL in short) were also added as respondents No.2 and 3 to this appeal. This appeal challenges MERC order dated April 02, 2007 in TPC (Generation) Multi Year Tariff Petition for the control period FY 2007-08 to FY 2009-10. The challenges in this appeal relate to the allocation of the electricity generated by TPC through its generation business {TPC(G) in short}. In the impugned order, MERC had, inter-alia, held that net energy for FY 2007-08 was to be allocated to the three Distribution Companies namely BEST, REL(Distribution) {REL (D) in sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant who is the successor in interest of the erstwhile Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the Chhatisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Respondent No. 3 herein, whereby in course of adjudication upon the revision in the matter of determination of tariff for purchase of electricity generated by the biomass power plants in the State the Commission directed revision in fuel price to be applicable retrospectively with effect from 1.4.2009. 2. The biomass power producers through their Association which is the Respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition being petition No. 7/2005 on 4.5.2005 before the Commission seeking, inter alia, certain concessions and relaxations with respect to the tariff determination and other charges payable by them for generation and sale of electricity. The Commission, however, by the order dated 11.11.2005 disposed of the said petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. The common judgment is being rendered in these two Appeals, as these appeals would arise out of the common order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission disposing of the two Petitions No. 10 and 11 of 2008 and giving directions to both the parties, namely Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd and Aryan Benefication Limited. 2. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company has filed an Appeal No. 119 of 2009 as against the Aryan Benefication Limited (ABL). Similarly the Aryan Benefication Limited has filed Appeal No. 125 of 2009 as against the Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited, on being aggrieved over the respective findings made in the impugned order dated 23.1.2009. 3. The short facts are as follows:- i) Ms Aryan Coal Benefication is the coal based generating station. This generating station entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board for suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Lanco Amarkantak Power Limited is the Appellant herein. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) in the Application filed by the Appellant for tariff determination pursuant to the Remand order passed by the Honble Supreme Court. 2. The short facts are as follows:- a) The Appellant is a generating Company. It has established a Coal based thermal power project in Korba District, Chhattisgarh. b) The 1st Respondent is the State Commission. c) The Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd (Haryana Power) is the 2nd Respondent which is a Government of Haryana undertaking operating and maintaining generating stations in the State of Haryana. d) The PTC India Ltd., is the Respondent No.3. It is licensed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission to undertake trading in electricity as an Inter-State electricity trader. e) Chhat...
Tag this Judgment!