Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Delhi
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J., Chairperson and H.L. Bajaj, Member (Technical)1. This appeal is directed against the order of the West Begal Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short WBERC/Commission), dated December 16, 2006 in appeal No.1 of 2006. The appellant is a manufacturer of Aluminium and Copper. It has a factory at Belurmath, West Bengal. The appellant is having an existing Contract Demand Agreement for 8.5 MW with the CESC Limited and draws power at a voltage of 33 KV through dedicated lines from the Belurmath receiving Sub-Station of CESC. For this purpose, the appellant has installed a 33 KV Sub-Station at its premises. 2. The appellant has a captive power plant at Hirakud, Orissa. On October 31, 2003, the appellant filed an application under Sections 9 and 42 of The Electricity Act, 2003, before the Commission seeking permission for open access to wheel surplus captive power of an approximately 9 MW from its power plant to its Belur factory. The distance between the captive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL182
1. Appeal No. 189 of 2005 was disposed of by this Tribunal vide a judgment dated 14.09.2006. Appeal against the judgment was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal was registered as 238 of 2007 and is still pending. However, vide an order dated 24.08.2007 the Supreme Court observed that the question "as to whether Section 43A of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 as repealed in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh was applicable in respect of the State of Uttaranchal after the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act 2000 and till the State Electricity Regulatory Commission was created on 05.09.2002", had not been addressed by us. The Supreme Court directed this Tribunal to record its findings on this issue after hearing the counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the parties counsel were heard. It can be stated at the outset that the controversy is actually related to Sub-section 2 of Section 43A of the Electricity Supply Act and not to the Sub-section 1. We, accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This judgment is to decide two appeals being Appeal No. 26 of 2007 and Appeal No. 36 of 2007. Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order namely the order of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC or Commission for short) dated 08.02.2007.The order was passed on a Petition by M/s. Noida Power Company Ltd. (NPCL for short), appellant in Appeal No.36/07, under Section 86 of The Electricity Act 2003, read with Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act 1999, seeking a direction from the Commission restraining the UP Power Corp. Ltd. (UPPCL for short) from taking any coercive action by withdrawing 10 MW of additional power that was being supplied by the UPPCL to the NPCL under an agreement arrived at in May, 2006.2. From the facts available on record it appears that the parties, namely NPCL and UPPCL, have been in perpetual conflict over the rate on which NPCL had been getting bulk supply of electricity from UPPCL. NPCL obtained a license from Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
2. This appeal is directed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'APERC') dated December 30, 2006 and March 22, 2007 in O.P. No. 19 of 2006 and Review Petition (SR) No. 9 of 2007 respectively. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh announced a policy for attracting private sector investments in the power sector. The Electricity Board in consonance with the policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited bids for short gestation power projects. Pursuant thereto M/s.Nippon Denro Ispat Limited (subsequently known as Ispat Industries Ltd. and now known as M/s. Vemagiri Power Generation Limited) submitted its bid to design, finance, construct, complete, own and operate a liquid fuel based power station of 468 MW capacity at Vemagiri, East Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh. The bid was accepted by the Board and the same was also approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CSERC or Commission in short) dated September 13, 2006 in petition No. 24 of 2006 (T) filed by the first respondent, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB or Board in short).3. The appellant has an iron ore beneficiation plant at Kirandul in Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh set up to process iron ore fines from NMDC. The process consists of grinding, washing and cleaning of iron ore for beneficiation and pumping in the form of iron ore slurry to the appellant's pellet plant located at Visakhapatnam where the iron ore fines are converted into pellets. The pellets are then used at the appellant's steel plant located at Hazira in Gujarat.4. The appellant is availing electricity supply from the first respondent at 132 kV and is a power intensive industry initially with a contract demand of 15 MVA with effect from May 25, 2005. It was contemplated that the contract demand would be i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1350
1. This appeal is directed against the Order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'CERC') dated August 28, 2006, recorded in petition No. 31 of 2004, whereby the appellant was not found to be a fit and proper person for grant of licence for inter-state trading in electricity. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It has been in the business of trading of electricity before the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') came into force. Since Section 12 of the Act does not permit any person, unless exempt under Section 13, to undertake trading in electricity without a licence issued under Section 14 of the Act, the appellant filed an application, being Petition No. 31 of 2004, on March 23, 2004 before the CERC for grant of a licence for inter-state trading of 100 million units of electricity in a year in all the five electricity regions. Along with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL86
1. Appeal No. 269 of 2006 filed by M/s Poddar Alloys (P) Ltd. is directed against the Order dated 13^th November, 2006 passed by Uttaranchal Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC or Commission in short) to the extent it violates the Order dated 2^nd June, 2006 passed by this Tribunal. Appeal No. 12 of 2007 filed by M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Ltd. is also directed against the same Order dated 13^th November, 2006 passed by UERC to the extent it violates the Order dated 2^nd June, 2006 passed by this Tribunal.2. As both the appeals are directed against the same Order of UERC dated 13^th November, 2006 and also to the extent it violates this Tribunal Orders dated 2^nd June, 2006, we are taking both the appeals together.3. All India Consumer Counsel (AICC in short) Uttaranchal, Dehradun filed an application for impleadment as a party in Appeal No. 12 of 2007 which was allowed by us. AICC is an NGO working from Dehradun and has filed the present application for impleadment in the intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL164
1. This appeal has been preferred by Reliance Energy Ltd. (for short REL) challenging the order dated October 3,2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Order") passed in case Nos. 25 and 53 of 2005 in the matter of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) Petition of REL for FY 2005-06 and ARR petition for FY 2006-07 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), the first Respondent 2. The Appellant, Reliance Energy Ltd. (REL) is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly stated are as under: 3. REL filed its Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) petition for FY 2005-06 on March 1, 2005 based on the Draft Tariff Regulations. The Commission notified the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005 on August 23, 2005. In compliance with the Commission directions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL101
1. This appeal, preferred by the Appellant, M/s G.M.R. Industries Ltd. of Hyderabad (for short "NCE Co-gen."), is directed against the Order of the first Respondent, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called as "The Commission") dated 17^th July, 2004, in O.P. No. 21 of 2004 and Review Order dated 18^th November, 2004, in R.P. No. 60 of 2004.2. The appeal challenges the aforesaid Orders of the Commission only to the extent that it rejected the claim of the Appellant for the purchase of power by it from the Respondent No. 2, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Ltd. (for brevity "APTRANSCO"), the latter is entitled to collect the energy charges as per the Tariff applicable to the HT-I category of consumers and for which purpose the maximum demand specified in the Tariff shall be computed by dividing the quantity of energy supplied by the "APTRANSCO" by the total hours in the billing month as mandated in the Article 2.5 of the Power Supply and Purchase Agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL1031
1. Relief sought by the Appellants in Appeals Nos. 180 to 197 of 2006 read thus: (a) Allow the appeal with cost, filed against the Impugned Order of the learned Commission and set aside the said Order dated 8^th June, 2006 (b) It may further be declared that the withdrawal of the Incentive Scheme shall not be applicable against the Petitioners due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. (c) The Respondent DISCOMS may be kindly directed to release the entire pending incentive amount from the date of discontinuance within one month. Interest may kindly be allowed on the pending incentive amount from the date of discontinuance at the same rate at which the DISCOMS charge from the consumers for delayed payment and (d) Pass such Order which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In Appeal No. 226 of 2006 the Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Set aside the Order dated 17^th December, 2004 and 8^th June, 2006 passed by the Rajasthan E...
Tag this Judgment!