ERC.from.which.the.appeal.arose

Date_of_Judgment

Date_of_impugned.order

Name_Chairperson

Name_Officiatin_Chairperson

Name_Judicial_Member

Name_Technical_Member

issues_tariff_determination

issues_law_force_maj

issues_regulatory_compliance

issues_open_access

issues_trans_grid

issues_procedural

issues_procedural_noncompliance

APTEL_precedent

APTEL_Precedent_Yes

ERC_Precedent_Yes

Explicit_Disposition._Type

Appeal_Remanded

Explicit_Appeal_Remanded

Impugned_Order_Quashed

Impugned_Petition_Type

india cements v aperc A.No. 26 of 2015.pdf

The India Cements Limited

(a) Allow the appeal by setting aside the common order dated 29.06.2013 passed in O.P. No. 27 & 28 of 2013 by the 1st respondent Commission and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to refund the FSA paid by the appellant for 4th Quarter (January 2013 – March 2013) of FY 2012 13.
(b) Pass such other Order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper.

A. Whether Regulation No. 4 of 2005 specifically classifies cost of power purchase as an uncontrollable item and provides for pass through of the same in the ARR for the year succeeding the relevant year depending on the availability of data as per actual with respect to the effect of uncontrollable items, therefore corrections for uncontrollable items and controllable items are also to be included in the ARR and allowed as a pass through as per the said Regulation?
B. Whether or not a legitimate FSA formula within the scope of section 62 (4) of the Act can allow recovery only for the variations arising from changes in fuel cost alone and that too only in respect of the energy purchased and consumed in the respective quarter?
C. Whether recognizing the need for metering of all electricity supply, specific mandatory provisions, expressed in the negative imperative, were made in Section 55(1) for the compulsory metering of all electricity supply within two years from the date of the coming into force of the Electricity Act 2003, therefore it is mandatory that every licensee shall supply electricity only through a correct meter no later than two years from 10.6.2003?
D. Whether or not agricultural consumption cannot at all be excluded for the purposes of determination of the FSA?
E. Whether or not in spite of the Commission's stipulation in Clause 45-B, which was first introduced before the Electricity Act 2003 came into force, and substituted after the said Act came into force, if not ignored or voided as illegal or held to have ceased to be in force, must be construed after the Electricity Act 2003 has come into force assuming that the licensees will comply with the mandatory requirement for metering all electricity supply within the statutorily prescribed period, it must mean that the Condition 1 could apply only during the stipulated period of two years which includes metering of agricultural consumption as well?
F. Whether after the period has expired, if the licensees have not complied with the stipulation for metered electricity supply, can the 1st respondent merely ignore the statutory requirement and continue to impose undue costs on non-agricultural consumers by way of distributing the additional fuel costs on them?
G. Whether after the expiry of the date specified in section 55(1), i.e. after 10.06.2005, Condition 1 of Clause 45-B can operate?
H. When the policy of the Regulation is not to exempt agricultural consumers altogether and to burden the other consumers, purports to turns only on the question of the 1st respondent's satisfaction on metering, can the violation of a mandatory provision of the Act by the licensee be the ground for other consumers to bear the burden?
I. When the licensees themselves quantify the agricultural consumption in their FSA claims can there be justifiable reason as to why the agricultural consumption should not also be subject to FSA?
J. Whether or not the entire Chapter IVA of the Conduct of Business Regulation 2 of 1999, including the impugned Clause 45-B has ceased to be in force with effect from 10.6.2004, and/or in any case from the date of coming into force of the Tariff Regulation 4 of 2005?
K. Whether Regulation No. 9 of 2004, which was issued after 10.6.2004 but purportedly made effective retrospectively from 10.6.2004, purported to make transitory provisions to overcome the effect of the proviso to Section 61 of the Electricity Act 2003, to continue the existing Regulation No. 2 of 1999 as amended as well as all other regulations notified from time to time under the provisions of the Reform Act as Regulations made under the Electricity Act 2003 and to so remain in force till appropriate new Regulations are notified under the Electricity Act 2003?
L. Whether or not Chapter IVA of the Regulation No. 2 of 1999, including the Clause 45-B, had ceased to be in force and effect on and from 10.6.2004, it cannot be considered that the same was existing as on the date of notification of the Regulation No. 9 of 2004, therefore, the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 could only be construed to continue and keep in force all the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1999 except Chapter IVA which had ceased to be in force by operation of law on 10.6.2004?
M. Whether the 1st respondent has power whatsoever to exercise a delegated legislative power with retrospective effect?
N. Whether or not the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 can have only prospective effect and the said Regulation has to necessarily be construed and given effect to accordingly?
O. Whether the determination of the FSA in the impugned order is contrary to the Regulations, violative of the principles of natural justice, unreasonable, irrational and contrary to law?
P. Whether in a matter requiring public notice and hearing, the 1st respondent itself has a greater duty to enable meaningful public participation and so as not to put the public to frustration and/or inconvenience and the 1st respondent must, before calling for public notice and hearing, verify with due care and diligence at least as to (a) the requirements of procedure and form have been complied with by the applicant, and (b) the information that has been furnished is so complete as to enable the Commission to decide on the matter without anything further other than hearing the applicant and the public, and (c) there is sufficient explanation and elucidation in the application to enable the ordinary public to understand the issues and the data and calculations, and (d) the 1st respondent ought to take any measures for consumers facilitation and assistance to enable their meaningful participation?
Q. When the Regulation requires each licensee to file its own FSA claim, each licensee has to give the particulars of its power purchases, its power purchase costs, its energy sales separately independent of others and a licensee is not permitted to recover anything more than the extra costs incurred by it in terms of the regulations can the FSA calculations be made on a state-wide basis and not on the actual of the individual Discoms' purchases and sales which leads to distorted FSA recoveries as between the different Discoms?
R. Whether Section 108 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make any directions contrary to the Regulations where the Regulations require the FSA to be determined in respect of each Discom separately and based upon each Discom's costs and sales?
S. When Section 62(4) permits only fuel cost adjustment by way of a formula, Power purchase cost variation can be considered only to the extent that the variation is due to variation in fuel costs, not otherwise and the FSA has to be determined only with respect to fuel cost variations alone whether the 1st respondent is justified in not adverting to this and has taken other costs also into account which is contrary to law and has not had due regard to and tried to otiose the subsequent Regulation 4 of 2005 which specifies the manner of dealing with variations in power purchase costs?

transmission corp v aperc A.No. 321 of 2013.pdf

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh

Justice Surendra Kumar

(A) Allow the appeal and set aside the Order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1, State Commission.
(B) Pass such other order(s) as this Tribunal may deem just and proper.

Issue No.-I : Whether the State Commission erred in considering the short term loan amount of Rs. 160.60 crores borrowed by Respondent No. 2, Spectrum Power Generating Ltd. from SBI, as equity, so as to earn incentive on the borrowed amount of Rs.106.60?
Issue No.-2: Whether the Appellants are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 20.75% on Rs.106.60 crore, if, it is not considered as equity instead of 16% equivalent to ROE?

The Appeal, being Appeal No. 321 of 2013 is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 16.04.2013 of the State Commission, is hereby set aside. The consequential order if any be passed by the Ld. State Commission within three months from today. No costs.

lanco v aperc A.No. 332 of 2013.pdf

Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(a) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Respondent Commission in OP No.9 of 2011;
(b) Declare that the Appellant is entitled to incentive payment of ?9,80,81,976 as per Article 3.7 of the PPA for the Tariff Year 2009, and accordingly direct Respondent No.2 to pay the balance amount;
(c) Declare that the Appellant is entitled to be paid interest amount by Respondent No.2 for the delay in payment of incentive as claimed in Supplementary Bill dated 29.1.2010 as per the terms of the PPA; and
(d) Pass such other and further orders and/or directions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper.

1. Whether the State Commission is right in dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant regarding payment of incentive as per Article 3.7 of the Power Purchase Agreement?
2. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant is entitled for a sum of ?9,80,81,976/- towards incentive for the tariff year, 2009 together with interest from the Respondent No.2 or not?

12.23 The Instant Appeal No.332 of 2013 captioned as Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby dismissed.
12.24 There is no order as to costs.

pmc power v aperc A.No. 268 of 2014.pdf

PMC Power Private Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

23. The impugned order is set aside qua the Appellants to the extent it fixes the Appellants' tariff. The matter is remanded to the State Commission. The Appellants shall furnish such data to the State Commission as they feel necessary within one month from today. If any further data is required, the State Commission shall call upon the Appellants to furnish the same within two weeks thereafter. The said data shall be furnished by the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of such letter. The State Commission shall complete the entire exercise of determination of the Appellants' tariff in the light of paragraphs quoted hereinabove of Order dated 20/6/2001 of the State Commission within a period of five months from today. The State Commission shall conduct the entire exercise independently and in accordance with law. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. All the contentions of both sides are kept open.
24. Till such time as the State Commission conducts the entire exercise as directed by us, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall pay the tariff as per the impugned order without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties. Needless to say that the State Commission shall ensure that its order is given effect to by making necessary adjustments as regards the difference, if any, in the tariff received under the impugned order and the order that may be passed by the State Commission.
25. We make it clear that this order shall create no equities in favour of other Mini/Small Hydro Power Projects which have not challenged the impugned order and have accepted it.
26. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

andhra pradesh ferro v aperc Appeal No.204 of 2013_30.05.2014.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Ferro Alloys Producers Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

(i) Whether the tariff can be fixed in violation of the principles enshrined in National Tariff Policy and Regulations framed by the State Commission?
(ii) Whether tariff can be determined on the basis of the directions issued by Government, when it is settled law that the State Government has been totally distanced from the tariff determination process?

"In the light of the above findings, we find that there is no merit in the Appeal. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs."

Andhra Pradesh ferro v APERC Appeal No.5 of 2013 and 58 of 2013_11.10.2013.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Ferro Alloys Producers Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

1. The First Issue is relating to the effect of the pendency of the same issue in Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Second Issue is relating to the non-est of the FSA Formula of the Commission's Regulations.
3. The Third Issue is with reference to Uniform amount of FSA for all the Utilities ignoring the FSA Formula specified in the Commission's Conduct of Business Regulations.
4. The Fourth Issue would relate to the Requirement of the Prior approval to claim the expenditure of power purchase from the Generating Companies and inclusion of expenditure incurred in the past.
5. The Fifth issue would relate to inclusion of the Expenditure incurred in the past.

"However, there is no order as to costs"

Petition for approval of power purchases

Andhra Pradesh ferro v APERC Appeal No.5 of 2013 and 58 of 2013_11.10.2013.pdf

Aman-Try Sponge and Power Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

The issues or the questions for consideration for the appeal in Appeal No.58 of 2013 are:
1. The effect of the pendency of the same issue in Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The non-est of the FSA Formula of the Commission's Regulations.
3. The Uniform amount of FSA for all the Utilities ignoring the FSA Formula specified in the Commission's Conduct of Business Regulations.
4. The Requirement of the Prior approval to claim the expenditure of power purchase from the Generating Companies and inclusion of expenditure incurred in the past.
5. The inclusion of the Expenditure incurred in the past.

"However, there is no order as to costs"

Petition for approval of power purchases

vaayu india v aperc A.No. 215 of 2014.pdf

Vaayu (India) Power Corporation Private Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(i) Whether the generic wind tariff order dated 01.05.2009 of the State Commission would hold good for the Appellant even when the same order dated 01.05.2009 is non est in view of this Tribunal's Judgment dated 03.05.2011 as alleged by the Appellant?

The Impugned Order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any defect and is hereby upheld.

Tecno electriv v APERC A.No. 99 of 2020 and OP 2 of 2020.pdf

Techno Electric & Engineering Company Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(i) Whether Appeal No. 99 of 2020 and Original Petition No. 02 of 2020 are maintainable?
(ii) Whether APSPDCL is entitled to the RECs for the relevant year i.e. FY 2018-19 when admittedly there was deficit in APSPDCL's RPO in the previous financial year i.e. FY 2017-18 as mandated under Ld. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for recognition and issuance of Renewable Energy Certificate for Renewable Energy Generation) Regulations, 2010?

a) We are of the opinion the Certificates already sold by APSPDCL which were obtained for the performance financial year 2018-2019 need not be disturbed.
b) So far as balance disputed RECs issued and unsold for the financial year of 2018-19, the Central Agency shall initiate revocation proceedings and cancel/revoke the registration accordingly in terms of Regulations of 2010.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Pushpendra Surana v. CERC
Green energy association v. Chhattisgarh State Commission

india cements v aperc A.No. 25 of 2015.pdf

The India Cements Limited

(a) Allow the appeal by setting aside the common order dated 23.04.2013 passed in O.P. No. 16 & 14 of 2013 by the 1st respondent Commission and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to refund the FSA paid by the appellant for 3rd Quarter (October 2012 – December 2012) of FY 2012 13.
(b) Pass such other Order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper.

A. Whether Regulation No. 4 of 2005 specifically classifies cost of power purchase as an uncontrollable item and provides for pass through of the same in the ARR for the year succeeding the relevant year depending on the availability of data as per actual with respect to the effect of uncontrollable items, therefore corrections for uncontrollable items and controllable items are also to be included in the ARR and allowed as a pass through as per the said Regulation?
B. Whether or not a legitimate FSA formula within the scope of section 62 (4) of the Act can allow recovery only for the variations arising from changes in fuel cost alone and that too only in respect of the energy purchased and consumed in the respective quarter?
C. Whether recognizing the need for metering of all electricity supply, specific mandatory provisions, expressed in the negative imperative, were made in Section 55(1) for the compulsory metering of all electricity supply within two years from the date of the coming into force of the Electricity Act 2003, therefore it is mandatory that every licensee shall supply electricity only through a correct meter no later than two years from 10.6.2003?
D. Whether or not agricultural consumption cannot at all be excluded for the purposes of determination of the FSA?
E. Whether or not in spite of the Commission's stipulation in Clause 45-B, which was first introduced before the Electricity Act 2003 came into force, and substituted after the said Act came into force, if not ignored or voided as illegal or held to have ceased to be in force, must be construed after the Electricity Act 2003 has come into force assuming that the licensees will comply with the mandatory requirement for metering all electricity supply within the statutorily prescribed period, it must mean that the Condition 1 could apply only during the stipulated period of two years which includes metering of agricultural consumption as well?
F. Whether after the period has expired, if the licensees have not complied with the stipulation for metered electricity supply, can the 1st respondent merely ignore the statutory requirement and continue to impose undue costs on non-agricultural consumers by way of distributing the additional fuel costs on them?
G. Whether after the expiry of the date specified in section 55(1), i.e. after 10.06.2005, Condition 1 of Clause 45-B can operate?
H. When the policy of the Regulation is not to exempt agricultural consumers altogether and to burden the other consumers, purports to turns only on the question of the 1st respondent's satisfaction on metering, can the violation of a mandatory provision of the Act by the licensee be the ground for other consumers to bear the burden?
I. When the licensees themselves quantify the agricultural consumption in their FSA claims can there be justifiable reason as to why the agricultural consumption should not also be subject to FSA?
J. Whether or not the entire Chapter IVA of the Conduct of Business Regulation 2 of 1999, including the impugned Clause 45-B has ceased to be in force with effect from 10.6.2004, and/or in any case from the date of coming into force of the Tariff Regulation 4 of 2005?
K. Whether Regulation No. 9 of 2004, which was issued after 10.6.2004 but purportedly made effective retrospectively from 10.6.2004, purported to make transitory provisions to overcome the effect of the proviso to Section 61 of the Electricity Act 2003, to continue the existing Regulation No. 2 of 1999 as amended as well as all other regulations notified from time to time under the provisions of the Reform Act as Regulations made under the Electricity Act 2003 and to so remain in force till appropriate new Regulations are notified under the Electricity Act 2003?
L. Whether or not Chapter IVA of the Regulation No. 2 of 1999, including the Clause 45-B, had ceased to be in force and effect on and from 10.6.2004, it cannot be considered that the same was existing as on the date of notification of the Regulation No. 9 of 2004, therefore, the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 could only be construed to continue and keep in force all the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1999 except Chapter IVA which had ceased to be in force by operation of law on 10.6.2004?
M. Whether the 1st respondent has power whatsoever to exercise a delegated legislative power with retrospective effect?
N. Whether or not the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 can have only prospective effect and the said Regulation has to necessarily be construed and given effect to accordingly?
O. Whether the determination of the FSA in the impugned order is contrary to the Regulations, violative of the principles of natural justice, unreasonable, irrational and contrary to law?
P. Whether in a matter requiring public notice and hearing, the 1st respondent itself has a greater duty to enable meaningful public participation and so as not to put the public to frustration and/or inconvenience and the 1st respondent must, before calling for public notice and hearing, verify with due care and diligence at least as to (a) the requirements of procedure and form have been complied with by the applicant, and (b) the information that has been furnished is so complete as to enable the Commission to decide on the matter without anything further other than hearing the applicant and the public, and (c) there is sufficient explanation and elucidation in the application to enable the ordinary public to understand the issues and the data and calculations, and (d) the 1st respondent ought to take any measures for consumers facilitation and assistance to enable their meaningful participation?
Q. When the Regulation requires each licensee to file its own FSA claim, each licensee has to give the particulars of its power purchases, its power purchase costs, its energy sales separately independent of others and a licensee is not permitted to recover anything more than the extra costs incurred by it in terms of the regulations can the FSA calculations be made on a state-wide basis and not on the actual of the individual Discoms' purchases and sales which leads to distorted FSA recoveries as between the different Discoms?
R. Whether Section 108 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make any directions contrary to the Regulations where the Regulations require the FSA to be determined in respect of each Discom separately and based upon each Discom's costs and sales?
S. When Section 62(4) permits only fuel cost adjustment by way of a formula, Power purchase cost variation can be considered only to the extent that the variation is due to variation in fuel costs, not otherwise and the FSA has to be determined only with respect to fuel cost variations alone whether the 1st respondent is justified in not adverting to this and has taken other costs also into account which is contrary to law and has not had due regard to and tried to otiose the subsequent Regulation 4 of 2005 which specifies the manner of dealing with variations in power purchase costs?

GMR Vemagiri v APERC Appeal No.222 of 2013_30.06.2014.pdf

GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

(a) Whether the State Commission erred in interpreting the definition of fuel as 'Natural Gas only' under the PPA restrictively by artificially limiting it to physical state of natural gas when the definition and the Article 3.3 of the PPA contemplates all forms of Natural Gas?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred in allowing unilateral modifications of the contractual terms?

The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, there is no order as to costs.

1. Order dated 12.4.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission
2. Order dated 14.12.2004 of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission

Singareni v APERC A.No. 5 of 2016_07.02.20.pdf

Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Ravindra Kumar Verma

Whether the appellant, a "consumer" of electricity who had been granted conditional exemption from obtaining a supply license for specified purposes under the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (AP Reforms Act) acquired on such basis the status of "deemed distribution licensee" rendering it immune from action by "Distribution Licensee" in the event of it being found indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity".

We find no merit in the appeal and hence the instant appeal, being Appeal No. 5 of 2016, and pending applications are dismissed.

Abhijit Ferrotech v APERC A248of18_18.02.22.pdf

Abhijeet Ferrotech Limited

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

Whether the Respondent Commission has erroneously ignored the provision of the Tariff Policy and various judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by this Tribunal.

30. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the Appeal have merits and hence the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 27.03.2018 in Original Petition No. 60 of 2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby set aside to the extent of our observation.
31. We remit the matter, involving the issue of determination of Tariff voltage wise, to the State Commission for a fresh decision for determining separate retail supply tariff, voltage wise, for all HT consumers, including for those connected at voltage level of 220 kV.
32. Needless to add that the State Commission shall also proceed to examine as to how the differential in the applicable tariff for the period in question is to be determined and recovered, and issue all necessary directions in such regard as well.
33. The issue having persisted for long, we would expect the State Commission to pass the fresh order in terms of above directions expeditiously, not later than three months from the date of this judgment. The Commission shall also ensure that the order it passes pursuant to our directions is scrupulously complied with expeditiously and in a time-bound manner and for this purpose shall have recourse to all enabling powers available to it under the law.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

1. Kerala High Tension and Extra High-Tension Industrial Electricity Consumer's Associations v. KSERC &Anr.
2. Siel Limited v. PSERC & Ors.
3. TATA Steel Ltd. v. OERC &Ors.
4. Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited v. OERC & Anr.

Hinduja v APERC A.No. 41 of 2018_07.01.2020.pdf

Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the State Commission in OP No. 19 of 2016 and OP No. 21 of 2015 in regard to decision taken by the State Commission as listed in paragraph 1 of the Memo of Appeal;
(b) Pass such other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper.

A. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission was right in allowing the Respondent – Distribution Licensees to withdraw OP No. 19 of 2016 filed for approval of the Continuation Agreement dated 28.04.2016?"
B. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the State Commission was right in not allowing the transposition of the Appellant as the petitioner in OP No. 19 of 2016 when the Respondent – Distribution Licensees had filed the application for withdrawal of OP No. 19 of 2016?"
C. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission was right in disposing of OP No. 21 of 2015 filed by the Appellant without determination of capital cost and tariff?"

We allow the appeal and direct the State regulatory commission to dispose of O.P. No. 21 of 2015 filed for determination of capital cost and O.P. No. 19 of 2016 for approval of amended and restated PPA (Continuation Agreement) on merits. The above exercise has to be complied with as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months. Meanwhile, AP DISCOMS shall continue to pay ?3.82 per unit for the power supplied from the Appellant's plant. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own cost.

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Everest Power Pvt. Ltd.

Abhijit ferrotech v aperc Appeal nos. 126 & 159 of 2012_05.09.2013.pdf

Abhijeet Ferrotech Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the tariff order is illegal due to violation of the MYT principles laid down in the Regulations?
ii) Whether the impugned order is illegal on account of not making the audited accounts for the previous year as part of the tariff filing?
iii) Whether the State Commission has violated the Regulations by not insisting on submission of cost of service and segregated accounts of the licensee for distribution and retail supply business and by not deciding sharing of gain and losses on account of performance of the licensee and not truing up the accounts, making the impugned order illegal?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in not penalizing the distribution licensee on account of having higher distribution losses than that allowed by the State Commission?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in determining the power purchase cost?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in giving a disproportionate tariff increase to the consumers at 11kV and 33kV?
vii) Whether the State Commission has failed to determine separate tariff for consumers availing power supply at the voltage of 220kV?
viii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not determining the cost of service for Ferro Alloys Industry's category?
ix) Whether the State Commission has given an unjustified increase in uncontrollable costs?

However, there is no order as to costs.

Abhijit ferrotech v aperc Appeal nos. 126 & 159 of 2012_05.09.2013.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Ferro Alloys Producers Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the tariff order is illegal due to violation of the MYT principles laid down in the Regulations?
ii) Whether the impugned order is illegal on account of not making the audited accounts for the previous year as part of the tariff filing?
iii) Whether the State Commission has violated the Regulations by not insisting on submission of cost of service and segregated accounts of the licensee for distribution and retail supply business and by not deciding sharing of gain and losses on account of performance of the licensee and not truing up the accounts, making the impugned order illegal?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in not penalizing the distribution licensee on account of having higher distribution losses than that allowed by the State Commission?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in determining the power purchase cost?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in giving a disproportionate tariff increase to the consumers at 11kV and 33kV?
vii) Whether the State Commission has failed to determine separate tariff for consumers availing power supply at the voltage of 220kV?
viii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not determining the cost of service for Ferro Alloys Industry's category?
ix) Whether the State Commission has given an unjustified increase in uncontrollable costs?

However, there is no order as to costs.

india cements v aperc A.No. 24 of 2015.pdf

The India Cements Limited

(a) Allow the appeal by setting aside the common order dated 12.03.2012 passed in O.P. No. 83 & 81 of 2012 by the 1st respondent Commission and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to refund the FSA paid by the appellant for 2nd Quarter (July 2012 – September 2012) of FY 2012 13.
(b) Pass such other Order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper.

A. Whether Regulation No. 4 of 2005 specifically classifies cost of power purchase as an uncontrollable item and provides for pass through of the same in the ARR for the year succeeding the relevant year depending on the availability of data as per actual with respect to the effect of uncontrollable items, therefore corrections for uncontrollable items and controllable items are also to be included in the ARR and allowed as a pass through as per the said Regulation?
B. Whether or not a legitimate FSA formula within the scope of section 62 (4) of the Act can allow recovery only for the variations arising from changes in fuel cost alone and that too only in respect of the energy purchased and consumed in the respective quarter?
C. Whether recognizing the need for metering of all electricity supply, specific mandatory provisions, expressed in the negative imperative, were made in Section 55(1) for the compulsory metering of all electricity supply within two years from the date of the coming into force of the Electricity Act 2003, therefore it is mandatory that every licensee shall supply electricity only through a correct meter no later than two years from 10.6.2003?
D. Whether or not agricultural consumption cannot at all be excluded for the purposes of determination of the FSA?
E. Whether or not in spite of the Commission's stipulation in Clause 45-B, which was first introduced before the Electricity Act 2003 came into force, and substituted after the said Act came into force, if not ignored or voided as illegal or held to have ceased to be in force, must be construed after the Electricity Act 2003 has come into force assuming that the licensees will comply with the mandatory requirement for metering all electricity supply within the statutorily prescribed period, it must mean that the Condition 1 could apply only during the stipulated period of two years which includes metering of agricultural consumption as well?
F. Whether after the period has expired, if the licensees have not complied with the stipulation for metered electricity supply, can the 1st respondent merely ignore the statutory requirement and continue to impose undue costs on non-agricultural consumers by way of distributing the additional fuel costs on them?
G. Whether after the expiry of the date specified in section 55(1), i.e. after 10.06.2005, Condition 1 of Clause 45-B can operate?
H. When the policy of the Regulation is not to exempt agricultural consumers altogether and to burden the other consumers, purports to turns only on the question of the 1st respondent's satisfaction on metering, can the violation of a mandatory provision of the Act by the licensee be the ground for other consumers to bear the burden?
I. When the licensees themselves quantify the agricultural consumption in their FSA claims can there be justifiable reason as to why the agricultural consumption should not also be subject to FSA?
J. Whether or not the entire Chapter IVA of the Conduct of Business Regulation 2 of 1999, including the impugned Clause 45-B has ceased to be in force with effect from 10.6.2004, and/or in any case from the date of coming into force of the Tariff Regulation 4 of 2005?
K. Whether Regulation No. 9 of 2004, which was issued after 10.6.2004 but purportedly made effective retrospectively from 10.6.2004, purported to make transitory provisions to overcome the effect of the proviso to Section 61 of the Electricity Act 2003, to continue the existing Regulation No. 2 of 1999 as amended as well as all other regulations notified from time to time under the provisions of the Reform Act as Regulations made under the Electricity Act 2003 and to so remain in force till appropriate new Regulations are notified under the Electricity Act 2003?
L. Whether or not Chapter IVA of the Regulation No. 2 of 1999, including the Clause 45-B, had ceased to be in force and effect on and from 10.6.2004, it cannot be considered that the same was existing as on the date of notification of the Regulation No. 9 of 2004, therefore, the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 could only be construed to continue and keep in force all the provisions of Regulation 2 of 1999 except Chapter IVA which had ceased to be in force by operation of law on 10.6.2004?
M. Whether the 1st respondent has power whatsoever to exercise a delegated legislative power with retrospective effect?
N. Whether or not the Regulation No. 9 of 2004 can have only prospective effect and the said Regulation has to necessarily be construed and given effect to accordingly?
O. Whether the determination of the FSA in the impugned order is contrary to the Regulations, violative of the principles of natural justice, unreasonable, irrational and contrary to law?
P. Whether in a matter requiring public notice and hearing, the 1st respondent itself has a greater duty to enable meaningful public participation and so as not to put the public to frustration and/or inconvenience and the 1st respondent must, before calling for public notice and hearing, verify with due care and diligence at least as to (a) the requirements of procedure and form have been complied with by the applicant, and (b) the information that has been furnished is so complete as to enable the Commission to decide on the matter without anything further other than hearing the applicant and the public, and (c) there is sufficient explanation and elucidation in the application to enable the ordinary public to understand the issues and the data and calculations, and (d) the 1st respondent ought to take any measures for consumers facilitation and assistance to enable their meaningful participation?
Q. When the Regulation requires each licensee to file its own FSA claim, each licensee has to give the particulars of its power purchases, its power purchase costs, its energy sales separately independent of others and a licensee is not permitted to recover anything more than the extra costs incurred by it in terms of the regulations can the FSA calculations be made on a state-wide basis and not on the actual of the individual Discoms' purchases and sales which leads to distorted FSA recoveries as between the different Discoms?
R. Whether Section 108 of the Act authorizes the State Government to make any directions contrary to the Regulations where the Regulations require the FSA to be determined in respect of each Discom separately and based upon each Discom's costs and sales?
S. When Section 62(4) permits only fuel cost adjustment by way of a formula, Power purchase cost variation can be considered only to the extent that the variation is due to variation in fuel costs, not otherwise and the FSA has to be determined only with respect to fuel cost variations alone whether the 1st respondent is justified in not adverting to this and has taken other costs also into account which is contrary to law and has not had due regard to and tried to otiose the subsequent Regulation 4 of 2005 which specifies the manner of dealing with variations in power purchase costs?

Common Order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the 1st respondent Commission in O.P. No. 83 & 81 of 2012

APPCL v NSL sugars A.Nos. 326 & 327 of 2019_30.01.20.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee

Ravindra Kumar Verma

The appeals and the pending applications are thus dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Shankar Industries
ESI Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works

APCPDCL v The Southern Regional Load Dispatch Centre & Ors.

APPCL v NSL sugars A.Nos. 326 & 327 of 2019_30.01.20.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee

Ravindra Kumar Verma

The appeals and the pending applications are thus dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Shankar Industries
ESI Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works

APCPDCL v The Southern Regional Load Dispatch Centre & Ors.

aman try sponge v aperc Appeal no. 96 of 2013 and Appeal no. 130 of 2013.pdf

Amman-Try Sponge and Power Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erred in passing on other expenses not under the category of FSA in the impugned order?
iii) Whether the impugned order has been inconsistent with the FSA formula specified by the State Commission?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in enhancing the ceiling price for short term power purchase?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in allowing high cost of imported coal used by thermal stations of APGENCO and NPTC?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in applying uniform FSA to all the Distribution companies?
vii) Whether the State Commission has erred by not passing on the FSA on the agricultural consumers?

The Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merits. No order has to costs.

aman try sponge v aperc Appeal no. 96 of 2013 and Appeal no. 130 of 2013.pdf

Andhra Pradesh Ferro Alloys Producers Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erred in passing on other expenses not under the category of FSA in the impugned order?
iii) Whether the impugned order has been inconsistent with the FSA formula specified by the State Commission?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in enhancing the ceiling price for short term power purchase?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in allowing high cost of imported coal used by thermal stations of APGENCO and NPTC?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in applying uniform FSA to all the Distribution companies?
vii) Whether the State Commission has erred by not passing on the FSA on the agricultural consumers?

The Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merits. No order has to costs.

GVK Industries v Eastern power Appeal No. 260 of 2013 and Appeal no. 285 of 2013_23.02.2015.pdf

GVK Industries Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Justice Surendra Kumar

i) Whether the State Commission has not given a reasoned order for rejecting the claim of GVK Industries for additional expenditure of Rs. 142 crores towards the capital cost of the power project?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not allowing additional cost incurred by GVK Industries due to delay in financial closure on account of delay in providing counter guarantee by the Central Government?
iii) Whether GVK Industries are entitled for additional cost incurred due to change in scope of the project in the capital cost determined by the State Commission?
iv) Whether the increase in capital cost should be seen in the context that GVK project was one of the first privately owned power projects in India and was subjected to a more vigorous and detailed risk assessment process of lenders resulting in incurring of significant expenses to ensure that the project was financed?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in not limiting the capital cost as per the ceiling cost prescribed in the PPA?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in allowing Foreign Exchange Rate Variation on the cost of imported capital goods.
vii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not disallowing customs duty on certain goods due to deficiencies on the part of GVK Industries?

In view of above both the Appeals i.e. 260 of 2013 and 285 of 2013, are dismissed and the State Commission's order is confirmed. No order as to costs.

GVK Industries v Eastern power Appeal No. 260 of 2013 and Appeal no. 285 of 2013_23.02.2015.pdf

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh

Justice Surendra Kumar

i) Whether the State Commission has not given a reasoned order for rejecting the claim of GVK Industries for additional expenditure of Rs. 142 crores towards the capital cost of the power project?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not allowing additional cost incurred by GVK Industries due to delay in financial closure on account of delay in providing counter guarantee by the Central Government?
iii) Whether GVK Industries are entitled for additional cost incurred due to change in scope of the project in the capital cost determined by the State Commission?
iv) Whether the increase in capital cost should be seen in the context that GVK project was one of the first privately owned power projects in India and was subjected to a more vigorous and detailed risk assessment process of lenders resulting in incurring of significant expenses to ensure that the project was financed?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in not limiting the capital cost as per the ceiling cost prescribed in the PPA?
vi) Whether the State Commission has erred in allowing Foreign Exchange Rate Variation on the cost of imported capital goods.
vii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not disallowing customs duty on certain goods due to deficiencies on the part of GVK Industries?

In view of above both the Appeals i.e. 260 of 2013 and 285 of 2013, are dismissed and the State Commission's order is confirmed. No order as to costs.

KSK mahanadiv aperc A.No. 230 of 2017_J.pdf

K.S.K. Mahanadi Power Company Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

A. Whether the State Commission was justified in opining that it has jurisdiction to entertain OP No. 46 of 2014 in the light of the Appellant generator supplying power to more than two States?
B. Whether the impugned order is justified in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Energy Watchdog?

The impugned order fails and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

eid parry v aperc A.No. 285 of 2014 & 286 of 2014 & 287 of 2014.pdf

E.I.D Parry (India) Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(a) Whether the State Commission is justified in allowing the maintenance charges allegedly incurred towards the maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the appellants claimed by the respondents from the commercial operation date (COD) till the demand notice i.e. for more than six years on the ground that Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable?
(b) Whether the State Commission is justified in holding that the respondents are entitled to demand Line maintenance charges/ expenses from the appellants as per the PPA and the procedure adopted by the respondents for calculating such charges/expenses is permissible under law?
(c) Whether action of the respondents, by imposing the additional charges, without furnishing the actual expenditure and even without informing the appellants about the extent of the maintenance work on the dedicated transmission lines, without giving any opportunity to the appellants and further without having undertaken maintenance of the said lines and further unilaterally deducting the maintenance charges from the monthly power/export bills of the appellants without giving any details of the maintenance and expenditure in the shape of a notice is illegal and unjustified?

In view of the above, the appeal Nos. 285 of 2014, 286 of 2014 and 287 of 2014 are hereby allowed and respective Impugned Orders are here by quashed/set aside. The respective petitions filed by each of the appellants before the State Commission, whereby the appellants/petitioners had challenged the imposition and demand of the maintenance charges allegedly incurred by the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) towards maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the respective appellants being per se illegal, whimsical and arbitrary and without any basis giving no methodology for calculating the said line maintenance charges/expenses from the Commercial Operation Date are hereby allowed. The said recovery or unilateral deductions of the amounts of the said demand notices is not barred by Law of Limitation as provided under the Law of Limitation Act, 1963 but are barred by the Doctrine of Delay and Laches. We further direct the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) to refund the amount of the said demand bills unilaterally deducted from the power bills of the respective appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of unilateral deduction till the date of actual payment within three months from today.

Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. (Appeal No. 127 of 2013)

eid parry v aperc A.No. 285 of 2014 & 286 of 2014 & 287 of 2014.pdf

Ganpati Sugar Industries Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(a) Whether the State Commission is justified in allowing the maintenance charges allegedly incurred towards the maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the appellants claimed by the respondents from the commercial operation date (COD) till the demand notice i.e. for more than six years on the ground that Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable?
(b) Whether the State Commission is justified in holding that the respondents are entitled to demand Line maintenance charges/ expenses from the appellants as per the PPA and the procedure adopted by the respondents for calculating such charges/expenses is permissible under law?
(c) Whether action of the respondents, by imposing the additional charges, without furnishing the actual expenditure and even without informing the appellants about the extent of the maintenance work on the dedicated transmission lines, without giving any opportunity to the appellants and further without having undertaken maintenance of the said lines and further unilaterally deducting the maintenance charges from the monthly power/export bills of the appellants without giving any details of the maintenance and expenditure in the shape of a notice is illegal and unjustified?

In view of the above, the appeal Nos. 285 of 2014, 286 of 2014 and 287 of 2014 are hereby allowed and respective Impugned Orders are here by quashed/set aside. The respective petitions filed by each of the appellants before the State Commission, whereby the appellants/petitioners had challenged the imposition and demand of the maintenance charges allegedly incurred by the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) towards maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the respective appellants being per se illegal, whimsical and arbitrary and without any basis giving no methodology for calculating the said line maintenance charges/expenses from the Commercial Operation Date are hereby allowed. The said recovery or unilateral deductions of the amounts of the said demand notices is not barred by Law of Limitation as provided under the Law of Limitation Act, 1963 but are barred by the Doctrine of Delay and Laches. We further direct the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) to refund the amount of the said demand bills unilaterally deducted from the power bills of the respective appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of unilateral deduction till the date of actual payment within three months from today.

Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. (Appeal No. 127 of 2013)

eid parry v aperc A.No. 285 of 2014 & 286 of 2014 & 287 of 2014.pdf

The Jeypore Sugar Company Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(a) Whether the State Commission is justified in allowing the maintenance charges allegedly incurred towards the maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the appellants claimed by the respondents from the commercial operation date (COD) till the demand notice i.e. for more than six years on the ground that Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable?
(b) Whether the State Commission is justified in holding that the respondents are entitled to demand Line maintenance charges/ expenses from the appellants as per the PPA and the procedure adopted by the respondents for calculating such charges/expenses is permissible under law?
(c) Whether action of the respondents, by imposing the additional charges, without furnishing the actual expenditure and even without informing the appellants about the extent of the maintenance work on the dedicated transmission lines, without giving any opportunity to the appellants and further without having undertaken maintenance of the said lines and further unilaterally deducting the maintenance charges from the monthly power/export bills of the appellants without giving any details of the maintenance and expenditure in the shape of a notice is illegal and unjustified?

In view of the above, the appeal Nos. 285 of 2014, 286 of 2014 and 287 of 2014 are hereby allowed and respective Impugned Orders are here by quashed/set aside. The respective petitions filed by each of the appellants before the State Commission, whereby the appellants/petitioners had challenged the imposition and demand of the maintenance charges allegedly incurred by the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) towards maintenance of the dedicated transmission lines of the respective appellants being per se illegal, whimsical and arbitrary and without any basis giving no methodology for calculating the said line maintenance charges/expenses from the Commercial Operation Date are hereby allowed. The said recovery or unilateral deductions of the amounts of the said demand notices is not barred by Law of Limitation as provided under the Law of Limitation Act, 1963 but are barred by the Doctrine of Delay and Laches. We further direct the respondents (transmission/distribution licensee) to refund the amount of the said demand bills unilaterally deducted from the power bills of the respective appellants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of unilateral deduction till the date of actual payment within three months from today.

Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. (Appeal No. 127 of 2013)

Lanco v APERC Appeal No. 154 of 2013 & I.A. no. 222 of 2013.pdf

Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(i) Whether the State Commission having come to the conclusion that the Petition of the Appellant for recovery of liquidated damages was barred by limitation should have proceeded to decide the issue on merits?
(ii) Whether the Respondent nos. 2 to 7 are entitled to recover the liquidity damages from the Appellant despite the claim having been held barred by limitation?
(iii) Whether the State Commission has erred in holding that the delay in commissioning of the project was not due to delay in allocation of fuel oil as per the terms of the PPA and due to force majeure caused by sinking of barge carrying Turbine and Generator?
(iv) Whether the Respondent nos. 2 to 7 can claim liquidated damages as provided for in the PPA without establishing the actual loss or injury caused to them due to breach in agreement due to delay in commissioning of the project?
(v) Whether the Respondent nos. 2 to 7 were correct in adjusting the liquidity damages from the invoices raised by the Appellant for supply of power without the same first having been adjudicated by the State Commission?
(vi) Whether the State Commission should have dealt with the counter claim of the Appellant for payment of the amount deducted by the Respondents 2 to 7 towards liquidated damages with interest?

The Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. No order as to costs.

Appeal No. 62 of 2013 and 47 of 2013

southern power v biomass energy A.No. 224 of 2015.pdf

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

"Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous."

andhra pradesh state load v aperc A.No. 280 of 2014.pdf

Andhra Pradesh State Load Dispatch Centre

Justice Surendra Kumar

Whether a RE Generator, like Respondent No.2, by a transaction of selling power to the distribution licensee through a trader at a price higher than the average pooled power purchase cost can claim accreditation and REC benefits?

The instant Appeal, being Appeal No. 280 of 2014, is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. The impugned order, dated 12.8.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in OP No. 56 of 2013 filed by M/s Roshni Powertech Private Limited, Respondent No. 2 herein, is hereby upheld.

Transmission Corpn v APERC A44of18_18.02.22.pdf

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeal and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.

Konaseema v APERC Judgement Appeal No. 117 of 2011 and Appeal No. 100 of 2010_Replaced_17042013_Corrected.pdf

Konaseema Gas Power Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, while passing its Impugned Order dated its 20.6.2011, has complied with this Tribunal's directions given in its orders dated 16.12.2010 and 20.1.2011 in letter and spirit?

The Appeal is allowed, The impugned order is set aside. We reiterate the directions given in our orders dated 16.12.2010 and 20.1.2011 and direct the State Commission to ascertain the losses suffered by the Appellant in accordance with its findings in order dated 5.12.2009 i.e. from the date of Notional COD and fix the rate of additional Fixed Charge along with the period for which such AFC is payable by the Respondent APDISCOMs to the Appellant within two months from issue of this Order. No order as to costs.

1. Order dated 16.12.2010 of APTEL
2. Order dated 20.1.2011 of APTEL

Meenakshi v CERC Appeal No.16 of 2013_13.01.2014.pdf

Meenakshi Energy Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

(a) Whether a common dedicated evacuation system/transmission lines can be developed by more than one generating station to connect to the Grid?
(b) Whether the statutory role of scheduling, dispatch, metering, energy accounting and similar functions relating to the control and supervision of a generating station by a load dispatch Centre can be abdicated by the load dispatch Centre?
(c) Whether the jurisdiction and role of the load dispatch center in the Electricity Act, 2003 can be circumscribed by the CEA Metering Regulations?
(d) If two generating stations can make use of a common evacuation system, consisting of dedicated transmission lines, whether the metering system and the energy computation formula proposed by the Appellant and endorsed by Power Grid could be utilized for accounting among the two systems?

The Impugned Order is set-aside. The Appeal is allowed.

Appeal No.81 of 2011

Biomass v APERC A250of14&B_08.03.22.pdf

Biomass Energy Developers Association

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The State Commission shall pass consequential order within 45 days of communication of this judgment. In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the relief sought in pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Biomass v APERC A250of14&B_08.03.22.pdf

Biomass Energy Developers Association

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The State Commission shall pass consequential order within 45 days of communication of this judgment. In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the relief sought in pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Biomass v APERC A250of14&B_08.03.22.pdf

The South Indian Sugar Mills Association, Andhra Pradesh

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The State Commission shall pass consequential order within 45 days of communication of this judgment. In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the relief sought in pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Biomass v APERC A250of14&B_08.03.22.pdf

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The State Commission shall pass consequential order within 45 days of communication of this judgment. In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the relief sought in pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

IL&FS Wind v APERC Appeal nos. 8 & 31 of2013_12.08.2013.pdf

IL&FS Wind Farms Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Accordingly, the same are hereby set aside.
The State Commission is directed to pass the final order in the matter considering that the Petition has been pending since March 2006, after hearing the concerned as early as possible, at any rate not later than 6 months from the date of communication of this Judgment. Till the tariff effective from 11th year of operation of the wind energy plants of the Appellants is determined by the State Commission, the Appellants will be liable to be paid by the Distribution licensee (R-2) for the energy supplied from their wind energy generators at ?3.37 per unit, subject to adjustment on determination of the tariff by the State Commission.
With the above directions, the Appeals are allowed and the impugned interim orders are set aside. No order as to costs.

IL&FS Wind v APERC Appeal nos. 8 & 31 of2013_12.08.2013.pdf

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Accordingly, the same are hereby set aside.
The State Commission is directed to pass the final order in the matter considering that the Petition has been pending since March 2006, after hearing the concerned as early as possible, at any rate not later than 6 months from the date of communication of this Judgment. Till the tariff effective from 11th year of operation of the wind energy plants of the Appellants is determined by the State Commission, the Appellants will be liable to be paid by the Distribution licensee (R-2) for the energy supplied from their wind energy generators at ?3.37 per unit, subject to adjustment on determination of the tariff by the State Commission.
With the above directions, the Appeals are allowed and the impugned interim orders are set aside. No order as to costs.

transmission corpn v sls power Appeal No.83 & 84 of 2014_21.07.pdf

Transmission Corporation Of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not maintainable.

transmission corpn v sls power Appeal No.83 & 84 of 2014_21.07.pdf

Transmission Corporation Of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not maintainable.

khandaleru v gulbarga A.No. 4 of 2015.pdf

Khandaleru Power Company Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

A. Whether the PPA has become null and void?
B. Whether the Appellant should be granted Open Access for wheeling and banking the electricity generated from its 1.4 MW Mini Hydel Electricity Power Project?

Appeal No. 4 of 2015 is hereby dismissed and the Impugned Order dated 25.09.2014 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.

spectrum v aperc A.No. 257 of 2014.pdf

Spectrum Power Generation Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(A) Whether the State Commission was justified in rejecting the claim of the Appellant against the Respondents No. 2 to 7 for refund of the amounts deducted by the Respondents towards levy of disincentive?
(B) Whether the State Commission has committed an error by concluding that the outage of steam turbine was the reason for not achieving the threshold PLF, whereas the same was not in outage throughout the tariff years in question and, further, in complete absence of Naphtha as supplementary fuel, the plant could not have achieved the threshold PLF?

The present Appeal, being Appeal No. 257 of 2014, is hereby dismissed and the Impugned Order, dated 12.8.2014, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, in O.P. No. 87 of 2012, is hereby upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.

lanco v cerc A.No. 69 of 2014.pdf

Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(a) Allow the appeal
(b) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the learned Central Commission in Petition No. 240 of 2012
(c) Quash bills dated 24.08.2012, 28.02.2013 and 23.07.2013 raised by Power Grid for the period April, 2010 to June, 2011
(d) Restrain Power Grid to raise any further bills towards sharing of Transmission Charges in Western and Northern Region for the period prior to 01.07.2011
(e) Pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(i) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the transmission and other applicable charges relating to the period march 2011 to June 2011 for the LToA taken on the ISTS of the respondent No.2/Power Grid from the Southern Region to Western Region and from Southern Region to Northern Region through Western Region?
(ii) Whether the Central Commission has completely ignored to deal with the fact that Power Grid had raised bills from December 2009 till June 2011, which were duly paid by appellant as per Regulation 33(7) of the CERC Tariff Regulation 2009 and BPTA dated 02.09.2009 and as such no charges are payable by appellant for the Northern and Western Region?
(iii) Whether the Central Commission failed to consider that the Power Grid has raised the impugned bill by retrospectively applying the amendment dated 24.11.2011 to the CERC Transmission Sharing Regulations 2010 for the period prior to 01.07.2011?

The instant appeal, being Appeal No. 69 of 2014, captioned as Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others, is hereby allowed and the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2014 passed by CERC in Petition No. 240/MP/2012 is hereby quashed. The said Petition filed by appellant/petitioner is hereby allowed. The provisional bill dated 24.08.2012 for the period March, 2011 to June, 2011 raised by respondent No.2/Power Grid on the basis of revised Regional Energy Accounts for the transmission charges upon the appellant is, being invalid, hereby quashed. We order that in case the amount of the provisional bill dated 24.08.2012 has been deposited by the appellant/petitioner or any how deducted or recovered by the respondent including respondent No.2/Power Grid from the appellant/petitioner shall be returned to the appellant/petitioner with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of such deposit/deduction or recovery till the actual date of returning back the said amount of the provisional bill dated 24.08.2012. We further direct all the respondents, including WRPC and Power Grid, not to revise Regional Energy Accounts of the appellant/petitioner for the period prior to 01.07.2011.
No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petition

slt POWER V APERC Appeal No. 247 of 2013_31.07.2014.pdf

SLT Power & Infrastructure Projects Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

(i) Whether the State Commission is empowered to modify the existing concluded PPA dated 2.2.2007 between the Appellant and the Distribution Licensee to revise the tariff agreed to in the PPA in the circumstances of the case?
(ii) Whether the Appellant was forced to enter into the PPA dated 2.2.2007 at a tariff lower than that determined by the State Commission for the NCE Project?
(iii) Whether the State Commission should have allowed the generic tariff as determined by its order dated 22.6.2013 for biomass based projects consequent to remand by this Tribunal to the Appellant's non-conventional energy project?
(iv) Whether the State Commission should have intervened in the matter to revise the tariff with a view to revive operation of the non-conventional energy project of the Appellant which has been lying idle due to unviable tariff since February 2008 to resume supply of power to the Distribution Licensee?

We, therefore, direct the State Commission to pass consequential order after hearing the parties.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Junagadh Power Projects Private Limited vs. GUVNL & Ors.

Biomass v agri gold Appeal No. 239 of 2013 and 246 of 2013_24.07.2014.pdf

Biomass Energy Developers Association

Justice Surendra Kumar

The main relief sought by the Appellants in these two Appeals is to allow the Appeals, setting aside the State Commission's impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, and also to allow the interest on the arrears of the differential amounts payable by the Respondent licensees consequent upon the impugned order from the original due date for the payment for the energy supplied from 01.04.2009 in each billing month up to the date of payment of the whole and/or any part of the said arrears at a rate of 13.31% per annum with monthly rests, or at such rate as may be applicable on the basis of the provisions in the CERC Regulations of 2009 and 2012 for each of the financial years within the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014 with monthly rests, and in any case not less than 12% with monthly rests.

The issue for consideration in appeal 239/2013 is:
Whether the State Commission, in the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, ought to have allowed interest on the arrears of the differential amounts payable by the Respondents-Distribution Licensees, consequent to the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, giving consequential effect to the State Commission's order, dated 31.3.2009, in OP No. 5/2009, based on this Appellate Tribunal's judgments/orders, dated 20.12.2012 and 30.04.2013 in review.

"Consequently, the instant Appeals being Appeal Nos. 239 of 2013 and 246 of 2013 are dismissed as they have no merits and the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs."

Biomass v agri gold Appeal No. 239 of 2013 and 246 of 2013_24.07.2014.pdf

Agri Gold Projects Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

The main relief sought by the Appellants in these two Appeals is to allow the Appeals, setting aside the State Commission's impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, and also to allow the interest on the arrears of the differential amounts payable by the Respondent licensees consequent upon the impugned order from the original due date for the payment for the energy supplied from 01.04.2009 in each billing month up to the date of payment of the whole and/or any part of the said arrears at a rate of 13.31% per annum with monthly rests, or at such rate as may be applicable on the basis of the provisions in the CERC Regulations of 2009 and 2012 for each of the financial years within the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014 with monthly rests, and in any case not less than 12% with monthly rests.

The only issue arising for our consideration is whether the State Commission, in the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, ought to have allowed interest on the arrears of the differential amounts payable by the Respondents-Distribution Licensees, consequent to the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, giving consequential effect to the State Commission's order, dated 31.3.2009, in OP No. 5/2009, based on this Appellate Tribunal's judgments/orders, dated 20.12.2012 and 30.04.2013 in review.

"Consequently, the instant Appeals being Appeal Nos. 239 of 2013 and 246 of 2013 are dismissed as they have no merits and the impugned order, dated 6.8.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs."

PMC Power v APERC Appeal No. 238 of 2016, Appeal No. 246 of 2016_07.12.18.pdf

PMC Power Private Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Whether the State Commission has determined the capital cost and plant load factor correctly for the projects of PMC Power Private Limited and NCL Industries Limited?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred by inter alia holding that review of the tariff for the mini hydel projects for the period from 11th year to 20th year of operation must be for each mini hydel power project?

The impugned order passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 18.6.2016 and 26.11.2016 are hereby upheld.

Judgment dated 20.12.2012
Judgment dated 20.01.2016 of APTEL in Appeal No. 268 of 2014

Order dated 20-06-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Order dated 20-03-2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

PMC Power v APERC Appeal No. 238 of 2016, Appeal No. 246 of 2016_07.12.18.pdf

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Whether the State Commission has determined the capital cost and plant load factor correctly for the projects of PMC Power Private Limited and NCL Industries Limited?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred by inter alia holding that review of the tariff for the mini hydel projects for the period from 11 th year to 20 th year of operation must be for each mini hydel power project?

The impugned order passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 18.6.2016 and 26.11.2016 are hereby upheld.

Judgment dated 20.12.2012
Judgment dated 20.01.2016 of APTEL in Appeal No. 268 of 2014

Order dated 20-06-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Order dated 20-03-2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

PMC Power v APERC Appeal No. 238 of 2016, Appeal No. 246 of 2016_07.12.18.pdf

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Whether the State Commission has determined the capital cost and plant load factor correctly for the projects of PMC Power Private Limited and NCL Industries Limited?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred by inter alia holding that review of the tariff for the mini hydel projects for the period from 11th year to 20th year of operation must be for each mini hydel power project?

The impugned order passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 18.6.2016 and 26.11.2016 are hereby upheld.

Judgment dated 20.12.2012
Judgment dated 20.01.2016 of APTEL in Appeal No. 268 of 2014

Order dated 20-06-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Order dated 20-03-2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

PMC Power v APERC Appeal No. 238 of 2016, Appeal No. 246 of 2016_07.12.18.pdf

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Whether the State Commission has determined the capital cost and plant load factor correctly for the projects of PMC Power Private Limited and NCL Industries Limited?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred by inter alia holding that review of the tariff for the mini hydel projects for the period from 11 th year to 20 th year of operation must be for each mini hydel power project?

The impugned order passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 18.6.2016 and 26.11.2016 are hereby upheld.

Judgment dated 20.12.2012
Judgment dated 20.01.2016 of APTEL in Appeal No. 268 of 2014

Order dated 20-06-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Order dated 20-03-2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

PMC Power v APERC Appeal No. 238 of 2016, Appeal No. 246 of 2016_07.12.18.pdf

NCL Industries Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

(a) Whether the State Commission has determined the capital cost and plant load factor correctly for the projects of PMC Power Private Limited and NCL Industries Limited?
(b) Whether the State Commission has erred by inter alia holding that review of the tariff for the mini hydel projects for the period from 11th year to 20th year of operation must be for each mini hydel power project?

The impugned order passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 18.6.2016 and 26.11.2016 are hereby upheld.

Judgment dated 20.12.2012
Judgment dated 20.01.2016 of APTEL in Appeal No. 268 of 2014

Order dated 20-06-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Order dated 20-03-2004 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

india cements v aperc A.No. 23 of 2015 & IA No. 47 of 2015 & 161 of 2016.pdf

The India Cements Limited

(a) Allow the appeal by setting aside the common order dated 2.11.2012 passed in O.P. No. 64 & 67 of 2012 by the 1st respondent Commission and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to refund the FSA paid by the appellant for 1st Quarter (April 2012 – June 2012) of FY 2012 13.
(b) Pass such other Order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper.

1. The instant Appeal, being Appeal No. 23 of 2015, filed by the Appellant on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi is dismissed as not pressed at the risk of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In view of the Appeal No. 23 of 2015 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi being dismissed as not pressed, on account of which, the reliefs sought in IA Nos. 47 of 2015 and 161 of 2016 do not survive for consideration and, hence, stands disposed of.
3. Order accordingly.

GMR Energy Limited v. KERC.pdf

G.M.R. Energy Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

GMR contended that the rate granted by the State Commission was inadequate to offset the adverse financial impact suffered by it consequent to the State Government's order under Section 11(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

i) Whether the State Government is empowered to determine the tariff and terms and conditions of power supply by the generating companies to the distribution licensees against the directions given under Section 11(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003?
ii) Whether the State Government can regulate the rate and other terms and conditions of supply by a generating company during the period when Section 11(1) is in vogue under Essential Commodities Act?
iii) Whether the role of the State Commission under Section 11(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is restricted to examine on an application by a generating company whether the rate determined by the State Government for supply against directions under Section 11(1) meets the expenses of the generating station plus a reasonable return and order compensation only if it is found that the generating company is not able to meet its expenses in supplying power under Section 11(1) directions?
iv) Whether the State Commission was correct to interpret the 'adverse financial impact on the generating company' as a consequence of the directions of the State Government under Section 11(1) of the Act and link it to the rate that the generator would have got in the market for sale of power had there been no Section 11(1) direction?
v) Whether the State Commission has to determine the rate of supply by the generator under Section 11(1) directions on the basis of principles adopted in determining the tariff under Section 61, 62 and 86(1)(b) of the Act?
vi) Whether the fact that the Appellant had been supplying power to the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board under a PPA dated 15.12.1997 which was valid till 7.6.2008 and the fiscal concessions given by the State Government at the time of setting up the power project by the Appellant have to be considered by the State Commission while determining the adverse financial impact on the generator as a consequence of Section 11(1) directions?
vii) Whether GMR is entitled to tariff of Rs. 8.85 per unit for the month of January, 2009 as per the agreement for short term supply to the distribution licensees existing prior to invoking of Section 11(1) by the State Government?
viii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not considering the rate at which the distribution licensees procured power in short term market during the period February 2009 till the end of Section 11(1) direction period for deciding of adverse financial impact?
ix) Whether the State Commission has erred to restrict the period of Section 11(1) directions up to 31.5.2009 instead of up to 6.6.2009 as claimed by GMR?
x) Whether GMR is entitled to interest for delay in payment by the distribution licensees/PCKL?

Appeal no. 37 of 2013 filed by GMR is allowed in part. Appeal No. 303 of 2013 filed by the Distribution Licensee, is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. KERC & others

GMR Energy Limited v. KERC.pdf

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the State Government is empowered to determine the tariff and terms and conditions of power supply by the generating companies to the distribution licensees against the directions given under Section 11(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003?
ii) Whether the State Government can regulate the rate and other terms and conditions of supply by a generating company during the period when Section 11(1) is in vogue under Essential Commodities Act?
iii) Whether the role of the State Commission under Section 11(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is restricted to examine on an application by a generating company whether the rate determined by the State Government for supply against directions under Section 11(1) meets the expenses of the generating station plus a reasonable return and order compensation only if it is found that the generating company is not able to meet its expenses in supplying power under Section 11(1) directions?
iv) Whether the State Commission was correct to interpret the 'adverse financial impact on the generating company' as a consequence of the directions of the State Government under Section 11(1) of the Act and link it to the rate that the generator would have got in the market for sale of power had there been no Section 11(1) direction?
v) Whether the State Commission has to determine the rate of supply by the generator under Section 11(1) directions on the basis of principles adopted in determining the tariff under Section 61, 62 and 86(1)(b) of the Act?
vi) Whether the fact that the Appellant had been supplying power to the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board under a PPA dated 15.12.1997 which was valid till 7.6.2008 and the fiscal concessions given by the State Government at the time of setting up the power project by the Appellant have to be considered by the State Commission while determining the adverse financial impact on the generator as a consequence of Section 11(1) directions?
vii) Whether GMR is entitled to tariff of Rs. 8.85 per unit for the month of January, 2009 as per the agreement for short term supply to the distribution licensees existing prior to invoking of Section 11(1) by the State Government?
viii) Whether the State Commission has erred in not considering the rate at which the distribution licensees procured power in short term market during the period February 2009 till the end of Section 11(1) direction period for deciding of adverse financial impact?
ix) Whether the State Commission has erred to restrict the period of Section 11(1) directions up to 31.5.2009 instead of up to 6.6.2009 as claimed by GMR?
x) Whether GMR is entitled to interest for delay in payment by the distribution licensees/PCKL?

Appeal no. 37 of 2013 filed by GMR is allowed in part. Appeal No. 303 of 2013 filed by the Distribution Licensee, is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. KERC & others

Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited v. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Private Ltd.pdf

Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

1. State Commission ought not to have directed payments to be made by the Appellants when the petition filed by Respondent No 1 was for seeking credit for the energy allegedly injected between 09.11.2013 and 20.02.2014.
2. If such a request for ex post facto credit is at all to be considered, the provisions of the Wheeling & Banking Agreement (W&B Agreement) also have to be made applicable to the relevant period in question.
3. Respondent No 1 could not have requested State Load Despatch Centre ("SLDC") for its approval for facilitating a W&B Agreement to sell power at a time when its project had not been commissioned.
4. The actual date of commissioning of the project, i.e. 09.11.2013 ought to be considered as date of the application.
5. The conduct of the Respondent No 1 in time and again changing its stand from asking for credit for energy injected at one time and asking for payment at generic rate at another; in not submitting the C Form, etc.
6. The KERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations 2004 do not prescribe any time limit for execution of the W&B Agreement. The State Commission in the Impugned Order erred in holding that under said Regulations; SLDC is required to grant approval for execution of W&B Agreement within 30 days from date of application.
7. The Appellants' cannot be held liable to indemnify the Respondent No 1, for commercial risks that it voluntarily undertook or the delay, if any, on part of SLDC, in granting approval for execution of the W&B Agreement.

A. Whether Respondent No. 1 is entitled to the credit of energy allegedly injected into the State grid between 09.11.2013 and 20.02.2014?
B. Whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled for payment at the generic tariff rate for the energy allegedly injected into the State grid between 09.11.2013 and 20.02.2014?
C. Whether the State Commission erred in directing the Appellants to pay for the energy injected into the grid at the generic tariff applicable to wind power projects since the Respondent No 1 had not even prayed for the said relief and had in fact filed the petition seeking credit for the energy allegedly injected between 09.11.2013 and 20.02.2014?
D. Whether the State Commission erred in holding that under the KERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004, SLDC is required to grant approval for execution of W&B Agreement within 30 days from the date of application, when in fact the Regulations do not prescribe any time limit for execution of the W&B Agreement?
E. Whether State Commission erred in rejecting the Appellants' contention that since the Respondent No 1 had not complied with the terms of the W&B Agreement, it cannot seek credit for the energy injected?
F. Whether the State Commission erred in imposing liability on the Appellants for the delay on part of SLDC?

We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present Appeal and IA and the Appeal is hereby dismissed.
The Impugned Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the State Commission is hereby upheld.
No order as to costs.

Indo Rama Synthesics Ltd v. MERC (Appeal No. 123 of 2010)

ERC order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) in Case 01/2014
ERC order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the KERC

M:s Cauvery Hydro Energy Ltd. v. KPTCL.pdf

Cauvery Hydro Energy Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

To set aside the Impugned Order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission.

a. Whether it is not contrary to law for the State Commission to, in execution proceedings (Complaint No. 13/2013), have re-opened and re-examined Original Petition No. 47 of 2010?
b. Whether an executing Court can at all go behind a decree and re-adjudicate the matter on merits?
c. Whether the impugned order does not fall foul of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavan Vaja and Ors v. Solank Hanuji Khodaji Mansang & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 40?
d. Whether the State Commission could have, in execution proceedings, rendered findings on issues that not even the subject matter of the Original Petition?
e. Whether the State Commission could have rendered a finding on the applicability of Cross Subsidy Surcharge with effect from 10.6.2005 when even though this was not an issue in OP No. 47 of 2010 or even in Execution proceedings?

The Impugned Order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the State Commission is set aside to the extent on the issue of Wheeling charges and remanded to the State Commission for clarifying its stand on Transmission and Network charges at Para 11 d) above.
No order as to costs.

Sirwar Renewable Energy Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Sirwar Renewable Energy Private Limited

Justice Manjula Chellur

Ravindra Kumar Verma

(A) Whether the Respondent Commission was justified in directing the SPD to file Petition seeking approval of extension of time?
(B) Whether the Respondent Commission was justified in passing the impugned order reducing the agreed tariff between the parties?

(a) The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(b) The Appellant is entitled for Rs. 8.40 per unit in terms of PPA from the date of commissioning the solar power plant.
(c) The 1st Respondent - GESCOM to pay the difference of the tariff paid per unit from the date of commissioning of the plant along with late payment surcharge in terms of PPA within one month from today.
(d) The Appellants are not liable to pay any damages and so also liquidated damages.
Pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

1. Azure Sunrise Private Limited in Appeal No. 340 of 2016 dated 2020-02-28
2. SEI Aditi Power Private Limited in Appeal No. 360 of 2019 dated 2021-07-14
3. SEI Diamond Private Limited in Appeal No. 374 of 2019 dated 2021-07-14
4. Chennamangathihalli Solar Power Projects LLP. Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited in Appeal No. 351 of 2018 dated 2020-09-14

Tata Prasanna Kumar v. KERC.pdf

Tata Prasanna Kumar

Justice Manjula Chellur

Ravindra Kumar Verma

(a) Allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 05/07/2018 passed by the State Commission to the extent challenged in the present appeal;
(b) Direct BESCOM to pay the arrears of electricity charges at the agreed rate in PPA of ?9.56/unit from the date of supply along with the agreed upon interest for the belated period;
(c) Pass such other Order(s) and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper.

The issues or the questions for consideration for the appeal in 211/2018 are:
1. Whether the decision of the State Commission to terminate the PPA on the following grounds is correct as per PPA?
a) That the Appellant violated the terms and conditions of the PPA / the approval granted by the Respondent DISCOM and also the Karnataka Solar Policy dated 22.05.2014.
b) That the State Commission has delayed the commission of the solar rooftop plants beyond the scheduled date of commissioning.

The impugned order dated 05.07.2018 is hereby set aside and remitted back to the State Commission with the direction to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the opinion expressed in this judgment. The State Commission shall pass the consequential order within three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.

Narayanpur Power Company Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Narayanpur Power Company Private Limited

Ravindra Kumar Verma

i. Call for records.
ii. Set aside the common Order dated 09th January, 2018 passed by 1st Respondent (KERC) produced herein as Annexure A1 in O.P. No.90/2016 and O.P. No. 47/2017
iii. Grant the cost of the Appeal;
iv. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to rant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest and justice and equity.

A. Whether the alteration of Banking period and introduction of TOD Banking norms would tantamount to alteration of tariff?
B. Whether KERC can alter the tariff within same financial year without any justifiable grounds?
C. Whether opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice are essential components of adjudication?

The instant appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. The common impugned Order dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016 and 47 of 2017 on the file of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (1st Respondent herein) is hereby set aside so far it relates the prayers sought by the Appellant in the instant appeal. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of the Judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed in Appeal No. 42 of 2018 & IA No. 214 of 2018 and connected cases (M/s Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd, vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.), in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months. The Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.

Appeal No. 42 of 2018 & IA No. 214 of 2018 and connected cases

Davangere Sugar Company v. KERC.pdf

Davanagere Sugar Company Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

(a) Whether the order of the State Commission directing damages to be paid to the Respondent Company by the Appellant is sustainable in law and hit by the principles of Res Judicata?
(b) Whether it is open for the State Commission to re-open the matter of termination of contract including the defaults of the Respondent when the said issue had earlier stood adjudicated and decided by the State Commission which was confirmed by this Tribunal and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, once again by way of awarding damages?
(c) Whether the State Commission could have ignored its own findings and binding orders passed by the State Commission earlier confirmed by this Tribunal and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India?

In light of the above findings, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. However, no order as to costs.

1. Appeal No.06/2008
2. OP No.03/2009
3. Appeal No.176 of 2009

KERC order in OP No.17 of 2009 dated 8.10.2009

EID Parry (India) Limiteed v. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited.pdf

E.I.D Parry (India) Limited

(A) Call for records; and upon perusal or records, be pleased to
(B) Set aside the final order dated 19th March 2015, passed by the 3rd Respondent in OP N. 14 of 2015
(C) Direct the 3rd Respondent to allow the Petition and consequently be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to jointly and severally pay the market rate for the power delivered by the Appellant for the period from July 2009 to June, 2011
(D) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.

(A) Whether PPA rate can be applied for the non PPA period?
(B) Whether 3 rd Respondent by extending the PPA rates for the
non-PPA period indirectly validated the PPA?
(C) Whether a party can be compelled to sell power at PPA rates
even after the valid termination of the PPA?

(a) The instant Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed insofar it relates to the claim of the Appellant.
(b) Impugned Order dated 19.03.2015 passed in OP No. 14/2013 on the file of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.
(c) The matter stands remitted back to the third Respondent/State Regulatory Commission for reconsideration a fresh in the light of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.10.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 800/2014, as held in para 4 of the said Order and disposed of the same as expeditiously as possible taking into consideration that the matter was pending for adjudication between the parties for several years.
All the contentions of the parties are left open.
Parties to bear their own costs.
With these observations the instant appeal stands disposed of.

Renewable Energy Developers Association of Karnataka v. KERC.pdf

Renewable Energy Developers Association of Karnataka

(a) Call for Records;
(b) Set aside the impugned order dated 02.03.2015 to the limited extent of the determination of the Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS);
(c) Grant the cost of this Appeal and pass such other order or orders as the APTEL may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

A. Whether the computations on consumption, Aggregate Technical and Commercial (ATC) losses and consequent arrival of tariff structure under the Impugned Order are ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003?
B. Whether it is ultra vires the Electricity Act, 2003 to arrive at the Average Realisation Rate as arrived at by the 1st Respondent by adding all charges other than energy charges viz., Demand Charges, Initial Security Deposit, Additional Security Deposit, Meter Security Deposit, Electricity Tax / Duty, Power Factor Penalties or any other component of tariff that is applicable other than energy charges?

Impugned Order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the State Regulatory Commission, first Respondent herein, is hereby set aside so far it relates to the issue no. 8(i)(b).
The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent/State Regulatory Commission with the direction to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and the second Respondent and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
The Appellant and the second Respondent herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent/State Regulatory Commission personally or through their counsel, without further notice, on 09.10.2018 for collecting necessary date of hearing.
With these observations, the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant stands disposed of.
Parties to bear their own costs.

Fortune Five Hydel Projects Private Limited v Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Matrix Agro Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Matrix Agro Private Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn.

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited v. KERC.pdf

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

Appeal is dismissed.

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.
Junagadh Power Projects Private Limited v. Gujarat urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. EMCO & Anr

M:s Narayanpur Power Company v. KERC (App No. 20 of 2013).pdf

Narayanpur Power Company

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

Whether the termination of the PPA through the Notice dated 23.4.2012 sent by the Appellant to GESCOM was valid or not?

The impugned order is set-aside and the prayer sought for by the Appellant in OP No.21 of 2012 is granted. The Appeal is allowed.
The State Commission is directed to pass consequential orders in terms of the findings and directions given in the judgment.

Appeal No.176 of 2009

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v. KERC.pdf

Savita Oil Technologies Limited

31-03-2016, 07-04-2016

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BESCOM Limited V/s Konark Power Limited (Reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 711) is binding on the 1st Respondent in so far as it cannot re-open in a concluded and approved PPA between the parties?
2. Whether a Regulator can re-open a decided case after a lapse of several years without any justification?
3. Whether a Regulator can compel a Generator to alter its tariff after the PPA is concluded and approved?
4. Whether the lower Quasi-judicial authority can amend/review its orders once the same has been merged in the orders of higher judicial authority?
5. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission is not hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and regulatory uncertainty?

The Appeals being Appeal No. 221 of 2016, Appeal No. 222 of 2016, Appeal No. 309 of 2016, Appeal No. 310 of 2016 and Appeal No. 317 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all the connected IAs stand disposed of as such.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. v. KERC & Anr.

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v. KERC.pdf

Savita Oil Technologies Limited

31-03-2016, 07-04-2016

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BESCOM Limited V/s Konark Power Limited (Reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 711) is binding on the 1st Respondent in so far as it cannot re-open in a concluded and approved PPA between the parties?
2. Whether a Regulator can re-open a decided case after a lapse of several years without any justification?
3. Whether a Regulator can compel a Generator to alter its tariff after the PPA is concluded and approved?
4. Whether the lower Quasi-judicial authority can amend/review its orders once the same has been merged in the orders of higher judicial authority?
5. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission is not hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and regulatory uncertainty?

The Appeals being Appeal No. 221 of 2016, Appeal No. 222 of 2016, Appeal No. 309 of 2016, Appeal No. 310 of 2016 and Appeal No. 317 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all the connected IAs stand disposed of as such.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. v. KERC & Anr.

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v. KERC.pdf

Swastik Construction Services

31-03-2016, 07-04-2016

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BESCOM Limited V/s Konark Power Limited (Reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 711) is binding on the 1st Respondent in so far as it cannot re-open in a concluded and approved PPA between the parties?
2. Whether a Regulator can re-open a decided case after a lapse of several years without any justification?
3. Whether a Regulator can compel a Generator to alter its tariff after the PPA is concluded and approved?
4. Whether the lower Quasi-judicial authority can amend/review its orders once the same has been merged in the orders of higher judicial authority?
5. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission is not hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and regulatory uncertainty?

The Appeals being Appeal No. 221 of 2016, Appeal No. 222 of 2016, Appeal No. 309 of 2016, Appeal No. 310 of 2016 and Appeal No. 317 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all the connected IAs stand disposed of as such.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. v. KERC & Anr.

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v. KERC.pdf

Swastik Construction Services

31-03-2016, 07-04-2016

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BESCOM Limited V/s Konark Power Limited (Reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 711) is binding on the 1st Respondent in so far as it cannot re-open in a concluded and approved PPA between the parties?
2. Whether a Regulator can re-open a decided case after a lapse of several years without any justification?
3. Whether a Regulator can compel a Generator to alter its tariff after the PPA is concluded and approved?
4. Whether the lower Quasi-judicial authority can amend/review its orders once the same has been merged in the orders of higher judicial authority?
5. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission is not hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and regulatory uncertainty?

The Appeals being Appeal No. 221 of 2016, Appeal No. 222 of 2016, Appeal No. 309 of 2016, Appeal No. 310 of 2016 and Appeal No. 317 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all the connected IAs stand disposed of as such.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. v. KERC & Anr.

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd v. KERC.pdf

Avon Cycles Limited

31-03-2016, 07-04-2016

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BESCOM Limited V/s Konark Power Limited (Reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 711) is binding on the 1st Respondent in so far as it cannot re-open in a concluded and approved PPA between the parties?
2. Whether a Regulator can re-open a decided case after a lapse of several years without any justification?
3. Whether a Regulator can compel a Generator to alter its tariff after the PPA is concluded and approved?
4. Whether the lower Quasi-judicial authority can amend/review its orders once the same has been merged in the orders of higher judicial authority?
5. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission is not hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and regulatory uncertainty?

The Appeals being Appeal No. 221 of 2016, Appeal No. 222 of 2016, Appeal No. 309 of 2016, Appeal No. 310 of 2016 and Appeal No. 317 of 2017 are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all the connected IAs stand disposed of as such.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. v. KERC & Anr.

Kurugunda Solar Power Project LL.P v. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited.pdf

Kurugunda Solar Power Project LL.P

Justice Manjula Chellur

Ravindra Kumar Verma

The prayers for the party in Appellant Kurugunda Solar Power Project LL.P, through its Designated Partner Sri. Sidram Kaluti in Appeal No. 12 of 2019 are:
1. This Tribunal may allow the Appeal relating to a small solar power project developed under land owners farmers category under the Solar Power Policy of the State of Karnataka, given that the delay in commissioning the project has been on account of procedural delay by government authority / intuitional level which were beyond the control of the Appellants.
2. This Tribunal may restore the agreed PPA tariff of ?8.40/kwh.
3. This Tribunal may grant the consequential relief of interest/ late payment surcharge provided in the PPA on the differential tariff that would be payable to the Appellants for the period commencing from the date of commissioning of the project till date.

(A) Whether the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the Petition?
(B) Whether the Respondent Commission was justified in passing the impugned order reducing the agreed tariff between the parties?

(a) The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(b) The Appellant is entitled for Rs.8.40 per unit in terms of PPA from the date of commissioning the solar power plant.
(c) The 1st Respondent - HESCOM to pay the difference of the tariff paid per unit from the date of commissioning of the plant along with late payment surcharge in terms of PPA within one month from today.
(d) The Appellants are not liable to pay any damages and so also liquidated damages.
118. Pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of.
119. No order as to costs.

Chennamangathihallli Solar Power Project LLP v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited
Lanco Amrkantak Power Limited v Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 22.05.2019 in Appeal No. 308 of 2017
Ayana Ananthapurama Solar Power Private Limited v. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors." in Appeal No. 368 of 2019
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 SCC On Line APTEL 65
Azure Sunrise Private Limited v. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited in Appeal No. 340 of 2016
Chennamangathihallli Solar Power Project LLP v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited in Appeal No. 351 of 2018

Jindal Aluminium Limited v. KERC.pdf

Jindal Aluminium Limited

Sandesh Kumar Sharma

The appeal is dismissed.

Shamanur Sugars v. BESCOM (App No. 44).pdf

Shamanur Sugars Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the State Commission holding that the termination notice was not valid and, therefore, the PPA entered into between the parties continued to exist is sustainable particularly when there was no issue raised between the parties with regard to the validity of the termination notice?
2. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission in holding that no claim for interest amount could be made after withdrawal of the Petition in O.P. No.10 of 2006 for the same claim, is sustainable when the Distribution Company had not honoured its commitment of settlement?
3. Whether the impugned order of the State Commission in awarding damages/compensation is sustainable when the Distribution Company did not object to the Appellant Company availing the Open Access especially when the Petition seeking compensation was filed only after the Open Access period is over?

The Impugned Order is set-aside. Appeal is allowed. However, there is nor order as to costs.

BESCOM v. Tata Power Company Limited.pdf

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice Surendra Kumar

(i) Issuance of appropriate directions to the Appellants (subject to prudence check), to pay an amount of ?16.30 crores to the Petitioner, Tata Power towards refund/reimbursement of the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) paid by the Petitioner for the period 2006 07 to 2009 10 in respect of the power supplied from its Belgaum Unit along with interest at the Default Rate as prescribed in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA);
(ii) Issuance of an appropriate direction to the Appellants to reimburse all such other amounts paid by the Petitioner, Tata Power towards MAT in relation to the Belgaum Unit during the subsistence of the PPA, upon the Petitioner making such payment and raising an invoice in respect thereof;
(iii) Quashing the letter dated 10.10.2011 issued by Appellant No.3, Power Corporation of Karnataka Limited and letters dated 28.10.2011 and 8.2.2012 issued by Appellant No.1, BESCOM to the effect that the Tata Power/Petitioner's claim for refund of MAT may be entertained after the expiry of ten years from the date of payment of MAT by the Petitioner, to the extent that credit for the MAT paid is not set off against the Petitioner's regular income tax liability at the end of such period;
(iv) Passing any other and further orders/directions as this Commission may deem fit.

Whether the Appellants are liable to reimburse the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) alleged to have been paid by the Respondent No.1, Tata Power under Clauses 11.4 and 11.5 of the PPA, dated 10.2.1999?

The impugned order dated 10.10.2013 is hereby affirmed.

Jaiprakash Hydro Power Ltd. v. HPSEB
Andhra Pradesh Power coordination Committee & Ors. vs. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. GMR Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Hunsankodilli Solar Power Project LL.P v. BESCOM.pdf

Hunsankodilli Solar Power Project LL.P

Justice Manjula Chellur

Ravindra Kumar Verma

1. To set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) in Original Petition No. 71 of 2017.
2. To confirm the extension order of BESCOM dated 03.02.2017 granting extension of 6 months to the Appellant to commission its project.
3. To restrain BESCOM from taking any action against the Appellant on account of communication dated 05.04.2017.
4. To declare that the Appellant is entitled to claim Force Majeure conditions.
5. To declare that the Appellant is entitled to extension of time as per clause 2 of the PPA dated 03.07.2015 without changing any condition of the PPA.

Whether the impugned order warrants interference?

The impugned order dated 18.09.2018 passed by KERC is set aside. The Appellant is entitled for Rs.8.40 per unit in terms of PPA. We direct the first Respondent / BESCOM to pay the difference of the tariffs paid per unit from the date of commissioning of the plant along with late payment surcharge in terms of PPA. Appellants are not liable to pay any liquidated damages. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No Order as to costs.

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. v. Saisudhir Energy (Chitradurga) Pvt. Ltd. (2018 SCC OnLine APTEL 65)

VRL Logistics Ltd. v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co Ltd.pdf

VRL Logistics Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

The impugned Order is passed with the consent of both the parties. Therefore, we do not find any ground to admit this Appeal as the remedy for the Applicant is not before the Tribunal but it lies elsewhere.
With the above observation, the Appeal is dismissed.

Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Vishwa Jeet Talwar

1. Direct the 1st Respondent (Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission) to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the Wheeling and Banking Agreement dated 5th June, 2010.
2. Set aside the letter dated 5th March, 2012 issued by the 1st Respondent.
3. Set aside the letter dated 15th May, 2012 issued by the 1st Respondent.
4. Pass any other order/s including an order to grant cost to this Petition, to meet the ends of justice and equity.

"Whether the interim relief sought for in the present proceedings before the State Commission is completely opposite to the main relief sought for and granted in the main proceedings by the State Commission?"

However, there is no order as to costs.

Ambuteertha Vs MESCOM

BESCOM v. KERC (App No 89 of 2013).pdf

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Whether the State Commission is justified in determining the tariff payable by the Appellant Distribution Licensee to the Generating Company at Rs.5/- per unit when the actual prevailing market tariff was much lower for the energy supplied by the Generating Company to the Distribution Licensee from 8.7.2009 to 16.12.2010.

63. In view of the above findings, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
64. However, there is no order as to costs.

NTPC vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order dated 11.12.2009 by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC)
Order dated 11.12.2009 by the KERC in OP No.16 of 2010

Sarover Energy Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Sarover Energy Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

To set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2012

(a) Whether the Cross Subsidy Surcharge determined by the State Commission is in accordance with the Regulations of the State Commission and National Tariff Policy or its own earlier orders?
(b) Whether the State Commission has determined the Cross Subsidy Surcharge in accordance with the Formula specified in the National Tariff Policy.

The Appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merits. No order as to costs.

RVK Energy v APCPDCL

Sarover Energy Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

To set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2012

(a) Whether the Cross Subsidy Surcharge determined by the State Commission is in accordance with the Regulations of the State Commission and National Tariff Policy or its own earlier orders?
(b) Whether the State Commission has determined the Cross Subsidy Surcharge in accordance with the Formula specified in the National Tariff Policy.

The Appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merits. No order as to costs.

RVK Energy v APCPDCL

Guttaseema Wind Energy Company Pvt Limited v. KERC.pdf

Guttaseema Wind Energy Company Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the State Commission has erred in carrying out simple averaging of the tariff for 10 years without considering the time value of money?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erroneously fixed the capacity utilisation factor at 26.5% across the State of Karnataka without taking into consideration the different wind zones and regimes?
iii) Whether the State Commission has erred in determining the depreciation at 5% without considering the loan repayment period of the wind generators?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the Operation and Maintenance expenses?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the capital cost.
vi) Whether the State Commission has failed to define the interconnection point for the purpose of accounting of the transmission losses from the generating station to the sub-station of the licensee?

The Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for re-determination of the tariff as per the directions given above within 3 months of the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.

Appeal nos. 205 and 236 of 2006

Guttaseema Wind Energy Company Pvt Limited v. KERC.pdf

Indian Wind Power Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the State Commission has erred in carrying out simple averaging of the tariff for 10 years without considering the time value of money?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erroneously fixed the capacity utilisation factor at 26.5% across the State of Karnataka without taking into consideration the different wind zones and regimes?
iii) Whether the State Commission has erred in determining the depreciation at 5% without considering the loan repayment period of the wind generators?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the Operation and Maintenance expenses?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the capital cost.
vi) Whether the State Commission has failed to define the interconnection point for the purpose of accounting of the transmission losses from the generating station to the sub-station of the licensee?

The Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for re-determination of the tariff as per the directions given above within 3 months of the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.

Appeal nos. 205 and 236 of 2006

Guttaseema Wind Energy Company Pvt Limited v. KERC.pdf

Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the State Commission has erred in carrying out simple averaging of the tariff for 10 years without considering the time value of money?
ii) Whether the State Commission has erroneously fixed the capacity utilisation factor at 26.5% across the State of Karnataka without taking into consideration the different wind zones and regimes?
iii) Whether the State Commission has erred in determining the depreciation at 5% without considering the loan repayment period of the wind generators?
iv) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the Operation and Maintenance expenses?
v) Whether the State Commission has erred in fixing the capital cost.
vi) Whether the State Commission has failed to define the interconnection point for the purpose of accounting of the transmission losses from the generating station to the sub-station of the licensee?

The Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for re-determination of the tariff as per the directions given above within 3 months of the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.

Appeal nos. 205 and 236 of 2006

Managalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. M:s AMR Power Private Limited.pdf

Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

(a) Whether the termination of the PPA dated 2.8.2006 by the Generator is legal or not?
(b) Whether a case has been made out for giving direction to the Generator to act in accordance with the PPA dated 2.8.2006 and to continue to supply power to the Appellant in terms of the PPA?

In view of the above findings, there is no merit in this Appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. However, there is no costs.

1. M/s Jasper Energy Private Limited v/s KPTCL and others
2. BESCOM Vs Davangere Sugar Co Ltd., and Another
3. M/s. Narayanpur Power Company Vs KERC and Another

Panchakshari Power Projects LLP v. KERC.pdf

Panchakshari Power Projects LLP

Justice Manjula Chellur

Ravindra Kumar Verma

(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by KERC in OP No. 87/2017.
(b) Uphold the extension of SCOD as per BESCOM's letter dated 03.02.2017 in compliance with the terms of the PPA.
(c) Direct BESCOM to apply the tariff of ?8.40 per kWH as per Article 5.1 of the PPA, to the power purchased from the Appellant's Project.
(d) Direct BESCOM to refund the liquidated damages deducted by it from the bill of the Appellant.
(e) Direct BESCOM to calculate and pay the Appellant the difference payable upon applying the tariff of ?8.40 per kWh to the power purchased from the Project till date of disposal of this Appeal.

"Whether the impugned order warrants any interference? If so, what order?"

(a) The Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(b) The Appellant is entitled for Rs.8.40 per unit in terms of PPA.
(c) The Respondent BESCOM is directed to pay the difference of the tariff paid per unit from the date of commission of the plant along with late payment surcharge in terms of PPA within one month from today.
(d) The Appellants are not liable to pay any damages and so also liquidated damages. Pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of.
38. No order as to costs

1. SEI Aditi Power Private Limited in Appeal No. 360 of 2019
2. SEI Diamond Private Limited in Appeal No. 374 of 2019
3. All India Power Engineer Federation in Civil Appeal No. 5881-5882
4. Chennamangathihallli's case in Appeal No. 351 of 2018

Tuppadahalli Energy India Private Limited v. KERC.pdf

Tuppadahalli Energy India Private Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

Whether the State Commission was justified in holding that on the plain reading of the Article 6.5(v) of the PPA it is clear that it cannot be read to mean that it provides only for the recovery of charges incurred for operating letter of credit and not with reference to the Rebate?

Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited v. KERC.pdf

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

The issues or questions for consideration for the appeal in 218/2013 are:
i) Whether the State Commission has erred in deciding that tariff of Rs. 3.40 per unit as per PPA and its order dated 18.1.2005 would be applicable to Appellant's wind energy generator even though the PPA was submitted to State Commission for approval after 1.1.2010 when the tariff of Rs. 3.70 per unit as decided by the State Commission by order dated 11.12.2009 had become applicable?
ii) Whether the tariff applicable to the wind energy projects of the Appellant would be as prevailing on the date of Commercial Operation of the Projects since when the supplies had been made effective to the distribution licensee and on the basis of which PPA was entered into and invoices raised and payment received by the Appellant?

The Appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited v. KERC.pdf

Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited

Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam

i) Whether the State Commission has erred in deciding that tariff of Rs. 3.40 per unit as per PPA and its order dated 18.1.2005 would be applicable to Appellant's wind energy generator even though the PPA was submitted to State Commission for approval after 1.1.2010 when the tariff of Rs. 3.70 per unit as decided by the State Commission by order dated 11.12.2009 had become applicable?
ii) Whether the tariff applicable to the wind energy projects of the Appellant would be as prevailing on the date of Commercial Operation of the Projects since when the supplies had been made effective to the distribution licensee and on the basis of which PPA was entered into and invoices raised and payment received by the Appellant?

The Appeals are dismissed as devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Fortune Five Hydel Projects Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Mangalore Energies Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Vyshali Energy Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Greenko Bagewadi Wind Energies Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Matrix Wind Energy Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Matrix Power (Wind) Private Limited

The issues or questions for consideration for the appeal in 282/2018 are:
1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Matrix Green Energy Private Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Green Infra Wind Power Generation Limited

1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Lalpur Wind Energy Private Limited

The issues or questions for consideration for the appeal in 117/2018 are:
1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors

M:s. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. KERC.pdf

Renew Power Ventures Private Limited

The issues or questions for consideration for the appeal in 118/2018 are:
1. Whether the impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission modifying the terms & conditions of banking arrangements and concluded contracts, retrospectively, is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, doctrine of Primissory estoppels, legitimate expectation, etc.?
3. Whether the impugned order has been passed without substantial data /analysis /evidence and is a non-reasoned / non-speaking order?

The instant Appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed. The impugned order passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 09.01.2018 in Petition Nos. 90/2016, 100/2016, 104/2016, 47/2017 and 130/2017 is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first Respondent, KERC with the direction to pass the appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months after receiving the copy of this judgement.
The Appellants and the Respondents herein are directed to appear before the first Respondent, KERC personally or through their counsel without notice on 29.04.2019.
In view of the disposal of the batch of Appeals, the relief sought in the IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Rithwik Energy Systems vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Gokak Power and Energy Ltd vs KERC & Ors