Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri V.J. Talwar, Technical Member 1 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, a distribution licensee in Western Gujarat is the Appellant. 2 Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 1st` Respondent. The Kutch Salt and Allied Industries Ltd (the Generating Company), is the 2nd Respondent. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd (GETCO), the Transmission Licensee in Gujarat is the 3rd Respondent. 3 State Commission has passed impugned Order dated 10.8.2010 directing the Appellant to procure excess energy generated by 2nd Respondent’s Wind Turbine Generator at tariff fixed by the Commission and to refund to the 2nd Respondent the amount deducted by Appellant @ 15% from the tariff rate determined by the Commission for the surplus energy available after captive use. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the Appellant has filed this Appeal before us. 4 Brief facts of the case are as under: 5 2nd Respondent, the Generating Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. Appeal No. 192 of 2010 has been filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumers’ Association against the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the tariff for generation, intra-state transmission and retail supply tariff. Appeal No. 206 of 2010 has been filed by Southern India Mills Association challenging the same order. The appellants in both the appeals are the associations of electricity consumers in the state of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Electricity Board) and Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) are the first and second respondents respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The State Commission issued its first tariff order under Section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 on 15.3.2003 based on the petition filed by the Electricity Board (Respondent-1) on 25.9.2002. 2.2. The State Commission notified its Tari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Appeal No.185 of 2010 THE HONOURABLE MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER and THE HONOURABLEMR. JUSTICE P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER In the matter: M/s. Entertainment World Developers Pvt.Ltd, Madhya Pradesh Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, OthersCounsel for the Appellant: Mr. K.Rai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Niraj Sharma, Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, Advocates. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran, Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Ms. Shikha Ohri Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Ms. Swapna Seshadri, Advocates. P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (The Commission, for short), the respondent No. 1 herein passed an order on 3.10.2008 whereby the Commission directed that the tariff for single point supply to the appellant which is said to have taken HT connection of 4000 KVA from 33 KV supply system shall be charged as per tariff schedule HV 3.3 applicable to shopping malls wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Mr. V.J. Talwar, Technical Member M/s Ind Barath Energies (Thoothukudi) Ltd is the Appellant (Appellant – 1) in the Appeal No. 125 of 2010. M/s Raghu Ram Renewable Energy Ltd is the Appellant (Appellant -2 ) in the Appeal No. 126 of 2010. Chairman and officers of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) are Respondent No. 1 to 3 in both the appeals. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 4th Respondent in both the Appeals. 2. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants aggrieved by the Orders dated 23.10.2009 in DPR No. 3 of 2009 and DPR No. 4 of 2009 passed by the State Commission. Since, the issues are the same, common judgment is being rendered in both the Appeals. The short facts are as under: 3. The Appellants are biomass based Generating Companies. The Respondent TNEB had entered in to the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with the 1st Appellant on 15.03.2004 and with 2nd Appellant on 20.06.2002 respectively. 4. Clause 7(a) of the said agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. A volley of questions while deciding the four appeals arise: a) whether the Commission can determine or enhance the bulk supply tariff at a flat rate applicable to different licensees in their respective areas of distribution? ,b) whether the parameters laid down in section 61 of the Act should not be followed?, c)whether, more particularly, criteria such as costs, expenses, availability of power, consumer base, consumer mix, efficiency of operations, financial viability of each licensee, distribution loss, geographical position which would vary from licensee to licensee should not have been considered?, d) whether there can be a uniform increase of bulk supply tariff applicable to the different licensees, e) whether in revising the bulk supply tariff the consumers of different licensees have really subsidized the consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board?, f) whether there can be a provisional hike in bulk supply tariff as done by the Kerala S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. The primary question that arise for consideration in the present Appeal is as follows: “Whether the Haryana State Commission has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute under Section 86 (1) (b) and Section 86 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 between Generating Company, the Appellant and the Distribution Licensee, Haryana Power (R-2) over a Power Purchase Agreement dated 21.3.2006 in which the said Distribution Licensee was not a party ?” 2. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited is the Appellant herein. It has presented this Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 25.8.2011 passed by Haryana State Commission dismissing interlocutory application filed by the Appellant before the State Commission questioning the jurisdiction of the State Commission to go into the dispute in question. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited, the Appellant is a public Limited generating Company. Haryana Ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Awadh Wood Product is a consumer of electricity in the State of Uttar Pradesh having established a Cold Storage plant at Bahraich, UP. The 1st Respondent, UP Power Corporation Limited (Power Corporation) is a deemed licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act) and was a Distribution, Retail and Bulk Supply Licensee under UP Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (Reforms Act). The 2nd Respondent is an Executive Engineer, an employee of Power Corporation (R-1). The 3rd Respondent is the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). 2. On 18.07.2003, the Appellant filed Petition No. 132 of 2003 before the State Commission under Section 26 read with Section 10H of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 praying for issuance of the following directions to the Power Corporation (R-1):- a. To restore an independent feeder of 137 KVA at Motipur substation exclusive for the Applicant to supply it with continuou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. “Whether the Haryana State Commission has the jurisdiction to go into the dispute with regard to validity of the Notice of Termination of the PPA issued by the Appellant to PTC (R3) raised in the Petition filed by the Haryana Power (R2) seeking for the enforcement of the PPA entered into between the Appellant and PTC (R3) to which the Haryana Power (R2) was not the party”? 2. This is the question posed for consideration in this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows;- a) M/s. Lanco Budhil Hydro Power Private Limited (LANCO Budhil), is the Appellant herein. It is a Generating Company which has been authorised by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to establish and operate a 2x35 MW Hydro Power Project in Himachal Pradesh. b) Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the First Respondent. c) Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (Haryana Power), a generating company owned by the Government of Harya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!