Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Hon’ble A.A. Khan, Technical Membe 1. The Appellant, Reliance Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘REL’ or ‘BSEB’ as known earlier) has challenged the order of Respondent No. 1, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity referred to as ‘MERC’/’The Commission’) passed on 12 Dec. 2007 in Case No. 7 of 2002 relating to petition filed by Appeal No 3 of 2008 Respondent No. 2, Tata Power Company Ltd. (for short ‘TPC’) whereby certain alleged outstanding dues on account of differences in energy rates between R. 2.09 per kwh ad Rs. 1.77 per kwh and shortfall in minimum off-take of energy claimed by ‘TPC’ from ‘REL’ (Reliance Energy Ltd. Which was earlier known as BSES) are allowed by the impugned order. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. TPC has been a licensee to generate and supply electricity in Mumbai area for over eight decades and, inter alia, directly supplies power to railways, refineries...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Hon’ble Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member Opinion I have gone through the draft judgment of my esteemed colleague on the bench, Judicial Member, Mrs. Justice Manju Goel on the Appeal, which is placed below. While I respectfully differ with her analysis and findings firstly in respect of the fundamental issue of the impugned pre-existing procedure of billing by the Appellant for consumption of energy to Respondent No. 3 as CPP-cum-HT-Consumer which is found to be erroneous by me not being in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement and secondly I find that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in the instant case. I am in agreement with her on the issue of application of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of the Limitation Act. I also opine that the principle of conduct of parties to a contract in deciding its future operation is not applicable in the instant case. I additionally find the failure on the part of the Commission in not co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are generating power from non-conventional energy sources and moving the energy on the wires of the licensees. They are aggrieved by the wheeling charges fixed by the Commission by means of tariff orders dated March 23, 2004, March 22, 2005 and March 23, 2006 for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-09 respectively. The facts reveal enterprise and entrepreneurship for setting up gas based generation plants and also saga of endeavour and effort of the Central Govt., State Govt., upto a particular stage, and the entrepreneurs to augment generation through non-conventional energy sources and also of road blocks to it. The relevant initiatives which need to be mentioned are re-counted below: 2. On October 17, 1988, a Memorandum of understanding was entered into between the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board [now Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'APTRANSCO')] on the one hand and The Andhra Sugars Ltd., Sri Vish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, respondent No. 6 herein, dated 09th May, 2007, whereby it dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of distribution license.2. The case of the appellant in brief is as under: The appellant, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC for short), a joint venture company of the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, is in the process of constructing a Mass Transit Rapid System for Delhi and part of the system has already been developed and is operative. Electricity is the only source of energy for operation of the metro system. Any interruption in power supply may have serious repercussions on the safety and security of the system and convenience of the passengers. The power supply on a regular basis is required for running the trains of the metro as well as other purposes like illumination at stations, air conditioning and tunnel ventilation in und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This judgment will dispose of four appeals mentioned on the title of this judgment. The appeals No. 188/05, 179/05 and 27/06 are directed against the order of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Raipur (Commission for short) dated 29.09.05. The appeals No. 16/06 is directed against the order dated 29.11.05. The appeals were disposed of earlier by this Tribunal vide a judgment dated 11th May, 2006. That judgment was challenged in three appeals, being No.4268, 3996 and 4529/06 which were disposed of by the Supreme Court vide a judgment dated 11.05.06 setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal and remanding the matter for a fresh judgment. The Supreme Court, in particular, wanted this Tribunal to decide the issue of application of Section 10(2) of Electricity Act 2003 to the facts of this case. We have heard the parties on all the issues involved.2. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL for short) established a sponge iron / steel plant at Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. The present appeal is filed by two appellants namely Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL for short) and Tata Power Company Ltd. (TPCL for short) to challenge the order of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 02.11.07 in Case No. 13 of 2007 & 2008. The prayer in Petition No. 13 of 2007 was to treat the two power generating units described as units 2 & 3 at Jojobera, Jamshedpur owned by appellant No. 2, TPCL as captive power plants of the appellant No. 1, TSL, exclusively for the purpose of steel works TSL. This prayer was turned down by the impugned order.2. TSL earlier known as Tata Iron & Steel Ltd. (TISCO for short) has been engaged in production of iron and steel and related activities. It was established at Jamshedpur in 1907. It set up a power plant inside its steel works with the capacity of 147.5 MW. In 1923, TISCO, now TSL, was granted sanction under Section 28(1) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (hereinafter referred to as A...
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
1. M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., MSPGCL in short, (the Appellant) is a company formed under the Government of Maharashtra General Resolution no. ELA-003/P.K.8588/Bhag-2/Urja-5 dated 24 January 2005, after re-organization of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The Appellant is in the business of generation of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellant submitted its application for approval of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Tariff Petition for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in February 2006 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission).MERC through its order dated 7 September 2006 determined the ARR and tariff for the Appellant. The Appellant sought a review of the above order of the MERC on various issues through petition filed on 19 October 2006, which was disposed of by the MERC through its order dated 07 December 2006. The Appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the MERC, hence has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of three appeals and two revision petitions as the point in issue relates to transfer of surplus electricity generated by a company through its captive power plants to its sister concerns set up by its share holders. Appeal No.32 of 2007 is being treated as the lead case.2. Appeal No.32 of 2007 is directed against the order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'PSERC'/'Commission') dated January 10, 2007 in Petition No. 10 of 2004, whereby the PSERC rejected the petition of the appellant seeking permission to transfer surplus electricity generated by its captive power plant to its sister concern namely Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. until the appellant completes its expansion programme, after which, the whole power generated through its CPP would be utilized by the appellant itself. The petition preferred by the appellant before the PSERC was based on the following averments: i) The appellant is installing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment in draft of my learned brother, Mr. A.A. Khan, Technical Member. I respectfully agree with the conclusions arrived at by him. I would, however, like to say a few words of my own with regard to the impact of the fourth proviso to Section 14 and effect of Sections 61, 62 and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short Act of 2003) on the provisions of the DVC Act, 1948 having a bearing on the tariff, particularly Part-IV of the DVC Act. In this context, it will be necessary to set out Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003: 14. Grant of Licence- The Appropriate Commission may, on an application made to it under Section 15, grant any person licence to any person - c. to undertake trading in electricity as an electricity trader, in any area which may be specified in the licence: Provided that any person engaged in the business of transmission or supply of electricity under the provisions of the repealed laws or...
Tag this Judgment!