ISMT LTD Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) M/s ISMT Ltd. ('ISMT'), Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune has filed an Application on 13 March, 2014 seeking impleadment as a party in Case No. 16 of 2014 arising from a Petition of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) for review of
Order dated 8 September, 2004 in Case Nos. 55 & 56 of 2003 concerning power purchase
and other dispensation for fossil fuel based Captive Power Plants (CPPs).
(2.) ISMT's prayers are as follows:
a. Allow the present Application and implead the Applicant as a party in the present Petition
b. Allow the Applicant to file detailed submissions in the matter and of being heard at the hearings in the matter;..."
(3.) In its Application, ISMT has stated as follows:
(1) ISMT seeks impleadment as a party in Case No. 16 of 2014. In its principal Order ('the CPP Order') in Case Nos. 55 and 56 of 2003, of which review is sought by MSEDCL in Case No. 16 of 2014, the Commission had considered the issue of banking of surplus power with the Distribution Licensee, and had held that banking facility is to be provided to the CPP holders for 'self -use' only and not for sale to the Distribution Licensee/Third Party.
(2) In its Order dated May 20, 2008 in Case No. 53 of 2007 of M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., the Commission referred to the CPP Order while deciding on the issue of banking facility to M/s Sunflag for the electricity generated from its CPP during off peak hours.
(3) In view of the above, considering the Orders passed by the Commission and the prevailing law, ISMT initiated steps to set up a CPP at Jejuri and approached MSEDCL to allow banking benefits for the surplus energy generated but not consumed.
(4) In accordance with para. 1.86 of the CPP Order, an Energy Banking/Connectivity Agreement (EBA) dated May 7, 2010 was entered into between MSEDCL and ISMT for banking of energy from ISMT's CPP for self use at its manufacturing facilities at Ahmednagar, Jejuri and Baramati. The CPP completed synchronization on December 31, 2011 and 72 hours reliability tests on January 17, 2012, and is now generating power. However, despite the EBA, MSEDCL did not allow banking facility.
(5) Vide Order dated December 3, 2013, the Commission disposed of the Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2013 in Case No. 46 of 2013 wherein it held that it has jurisdiction. MSEDCL has challenged that Order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).
(6) On the one hand, MSEDCL is challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission to decide on the issue of banking arising out of the CPP Order; on the other hand, in its present Petition, MSEDCL is seeking review of that Order after more than 10 years. In the circumstances, the Petition should be dismissed in limine.
(7) If MSEDCL's Petition is allowed, the main party to suffer amongst others would be ISMT. The Commission can direct impleadment of a party in a proceeding if it has an interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. Apparently, any orders passed in the present Petition will directly affect the Applicant ISMT's interests. Moreover, ISMT has a strong case to succeed on merits. Hence, the Application for impleadment should be accepted and ISMT should be heard. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.