- (1.)THE petitioner, DVC had filed this petition for approval of tariff of Mejia TPS Extension, Unit Nos. 5 & 6 (2 x 250 MW) (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station") for the period 29.2.2008 to 31.3.2009, based on the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2004 regulations") and the Commission by its order dated 23.12.2009 determined the annual fixed charges for the period 2004 -09 based on the capital cost as under:
The pro -rata annual fixed charges approved by order dated 23.12.2009 is as under:

Background

(2.)THE Commission by its order dated 30.4.2008 in Petition No. 53/2008 (with IA No. 4/2008) had approved single part provisional tariff of Rs.2.90/kWh for Unit -5 of the generating station. Subsequently, the Commission vide order dated 23.12.2009 in Petition No. 155/2009 approved the tariff for the period from 29.2.2008 to 23.9.2008 in respect of Unit -5 and from 24.9.2008 to 31.3.2009 for Unit Nos. 5 & 6 of the generating station. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 40/2011 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ("the Tribunal") challenging the Commission's order dated 23.12.2009. In the said appeal, the petitioner had raised the following issues for consideration of the Tribunal.
(i) Notional interest during construction;

(ii) Un -discharged liabilities duly incurred as on the date of the commercial operation but pending payment.

(iii) Interest on Capital contribution admissible as per Section 38 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1958.

(iv) O & M Expenses relating to payment made by virtue of the revision of pay to the DVC personnel as a result of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations.

(v) Contribution to the Sinking Fund as per provisions of Section 40 of the DVC Act, 1948.

(vi) Rate of Interest on working capital.

However, during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not press for issues (v) and (vi) above. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties had rejected the prayers of the petitioner relating to issues (i) and (iii) above by its judgment dated 1.5.2012. As regards the issue at (ii) above viz., Un -discharged liabilities duly incurred as on the date of the commercial operation but pending payment, the Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.5.2012 had recorded the undertaking made by the Commission to allow the un -discharged liabilities deducted from the capital cost, subject to the final outcome of the Civil Appeals filed by the Commission, disposed of the prayer of the petitioner as under:

28. In view of categorical undertaking made by the Central Commission to implement the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal no. 151& 152 of 2009 dated 10.12.2007 and in Appeal nos. 133, 135, 136 and 148 of 2008 dated 16.3.2009 in respect of the generating stations of the Appellant i.e. Mejia unit 5 & 6 and would allow un -discharged liabilities deducted from the capital cost, subject to the final outcome of the Civil Appeals filed by the Central Commission before the Supreme Court against the orders of this Tribunal in the said Appeals, the issue is decided in favour of the Appellant

(3.)AS regards issue at paragraph 3(iv) above viz., O & M Expenses relating to payment made by virtue of the revision of pay to the DVC personnel as a result of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the Tribunal in its judgment dated 1.5.2012, after taking note of the submission of the Commission that Petition No. 148/GT/2011 was pending for consideration, disposed of the prayer of the petitioner as under:
40........It is further submitted that in terms of the liberty granted by the Commission in its order dated 23.12.2009 in Petition No. 155 of 2008, the Appellant has also filed Petition No. 148/GT/2011 before the Commission on 21.6.2011 in respect of this generating station, claiming amongst others the impact of additional O&M expenses due to pay revision during the period from 24.9.2008 to 31.3.2009. Both Petition No. 272/2010 and Petition No. 148/GT/2011 are presently under consideration by the Commission.

41. In view of the submission made by the Central Commission that the issue is already under consideration before it, we do not intend to interfere with the process. However, we give liberty to the Appellant to approach this Tribunal, if required, at appropriate stage.