Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL236
1. This appeal is directed against the Order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) dated 25^th May, 2005. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: 2. The Appellant is a power generating company under the control of the Central Government. It has three Thermal Power Stations as per the following details: 3. In this appeal, we are concerned with Thermal Power Station-II (for short TPS-II). TPS-II consists of Stage-I and Stage-II. Stage-I has three units with a capacity of 630 MW and Stage-II has four units with a capacity of 840 MW. TPS-II is linked with captive Mine-II for its lignite supply. In Order to cater for the power requirement of Mine-II, 50 MW was allocated to it from TPS-II. It also needs to be pointed out that 50 MW was also allocated from TPS-II for Mine-I expansion.4. Before the introduction of the Availability Based Tariff (ABT) regime, power was being exported by NLC TPS I and TPS II, after meeting the auxiliary power consumption of individ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Several issues have been raised by Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel assailing the order impugned. One of the points raised by Mr. Parekh is that one of the Commission Members was a party to the proceedings which culminated into the order passed by the Commission earlier on 19.10.2005 and 14.09.2006.As fairly conceded by Mr. Parekh, this point regarding the bias has never been raised before the Commission. However, on seeing some documents, it is clear that one of the Members of the Commission has had correspondence with the Appellant through letters. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Commission to give opportunity to the Appellant to argue the point regarding bias and the Commission can consider the same and decide about the matter in accordance with law.With regard to the other issues, we are not inclined to give any opinion especially when it is admitted that in respect of the two orders earlier passed on ...
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
Reported in : (2005)LCAPTEL1134
1. In these Appeals, the validity of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004, particularly Regulations 16 and 21 thereof have been questioned.The following two issues arise in these two Appeals for our determination: (i) Whether or not, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 are in the nature of subordinate legislation? and (ii) Whether or not, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the impugned Regulations? 2. Appearing for the Appellants Mr. V.R. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel urged that the Regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003 are not in the nature of subordinate legislation and have an administrative character only. He pointed out that a legislative act results in the formulation of a rule of general application without reference to a particular case or an individual. He submitted that some of the Regulations are not of general ...
Tag this Judgment!