Surendra Kumar, Member (J) - (1.)THE instant Appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has been preferred by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (in short, the 'Appellant'), against the impugned order, dated 27.1.2014, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short, the 'Central Commission') in Petition No. 97 of 2011, whereby the learned Central Commission has determined the tariff for the Assets in Western Region, constructed under the Western Region System Strengthening Scheme -II (WRSSS -II), Set A for the tariff period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014.
(2.)THE Central Commission while dealing with the aspect of Interest During Construction (IDC) and Incidental Expenses During Construction (IEDC) has disallowed the claim of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 251.50 lakhs on an assumption that 12 to 14 weeks time as against 10 months claimed by the Appellant is a reasonable time for completion of the works after the forest clearance was granted. The matter in issue in the instant Appeal is disallowance of the interest during construction (IDC) and IEDC by the Central Commission amounting to Rs. 251.50 lakhs in respect of time over -run of six months out of 10 months claimed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL), the Appellant herein. The Central Commission, keeping these facts in view, has condoned/allowed delay of 4 months against the total delay of 10 months as claimed by the Appellant/Petitioner in commissioning of Asset -II.
The relevant facts giving rise to the instant Appeal are as under:

(a) that the Appellant herein, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., is a Government Company and is engaged in the transmission of electricity and discharges the functions of the Central Transmission Utility (CTU) under the Electricity Act, 2003.

(b) that the Respondent No. 1 is the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission authorized to determine the tariff for the Appellant and to perform other functions provided under the Electricity Act, 2003.

(c) that on 24.07.2006, the Investment Approval for WRSS -II was accorded by the Ministry of Power, Government India for the Transmission project at an estimated cost of Rs. 5221.23 crores including Interest During Construction (IDC) of Rs. 380.42 crores based on 4th quarter 2005 price level consisting of (i) Rs. 358140 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 25062 lakh) for the Appellant's portion and (ii) Rs. 163983 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 12980 lakh) for IPTC portion. As per the Investment Approval, dated 24.7.2006, the project was scheduled to be commissioned within a period of 48 months from the date of investment approval namely by 23.7.2010.

(d) that the Bhadrawati - Parli transmission line (Asset II) of the above Transmission Project was passing through a stretch of 0.80. KM of the forest area in the State of Maharashtra and a tower for such transmission line was to be erected within such forest area. For such activities, forest clearance was required to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

(e) that the Appellant on 1.12.2006 submitted its proposal to the Deputy Conservator of Forest for approval of forest clearance. Due to the inaction of the concerned authority, the Appellant could obtain the approval of forest clearance after a period of more than three years i.e. on 20.7.2010 and in such circumstances it was not possible on the part of the Appellant to complete the project work within the stipulated time period.

(f) that the Appellant immediately after obtaining the forest clearance on 20.7.2010, started the construction work which involved the activities such as tree cutting, site clearance, foundation casting, tower erection etc. Such activities were to be carried out in seriatim. However due to heavy rain during July, August and October 2010, no work could be done. The unprecedented rain attributed to a further delay in commissioning of the above mentioned Bhadrawati -Parli Transmission line (Asset II). In other words, the Appellant could not carry out the work during the month of July, August and October 2010 due to unprecedented rain and, further, there were no road facilities in the forest area which was difficult for mobilization of man and materials and, further, the project site was in a hilly area and all the activities of foundation, casting of footing & legs, backfilling to final backfilling were time consuming. The construction and commissioning of the project was also affected by the reason of bad site condition and non -availability of bays on the transmission network of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Corporation Ltd. (MSETCL).

(g) that 2 nos. line reactors for Bhadrawati -Parli Transmission Line (Asset -II) and 1 nos. Bus reactor could get charged on 31.3.2011, however, due to non -availability of bays at Girwali (Parli) Sub -Station of MSETCL, the system could not be declared under Commercial operation till May' 2011 and July' 2011 for Bhadrawati -Parli (Asset -II) & Parli -Parli Transmission Line and Wardha -Parli Transmission Line respectively. The Central Commission ought to have considered delay after 31.3.2011 as the transmission lines were ready for commercial operation.

(h) that Bhadrawati -Parli Transmission Line (Asset -II) was commissioned on 1.6.2011 after a delay of 10 months.

(i) that on 30.3.2011, the Appellant filed a petition, being Petition No. 97 of 2011, before the Central Commission for the approval of the transmission tariff for the transmission project from the anticipated date of commercial operation of respective assets till 31.03.2014.

(j) that in the petition, the Appellant pointed out the following four reasons for time over -run:

(i) Delay in grant of forest clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

(ii) Unprecedented rain during July, 2010 to October, 2010.

(iii) Bad site condition.

(iv) Non -availability of bays of Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited (MSETCL)

(k) that the learned Central Commission, vide impugned order, dated 27.1.2014, has decided the transmission tariff for the project of the Appellant. The learned Central Commission has not allowed the Interest During Construction (IDC) and Incidental Expenses During Construction (IEDC) as claimed by the Appellant. The relevant part of the impugned order, dated 27.1.2014, is being reproduced for ready reference, which is as under:

"400 kV Bhadrawati - Parli D/C transmission line

13. The petitioner has submitted that the Stage -II Forest Clearance for 0.80 km stretch of Bhadrawati -Parli transmission line, passing through the forest area was granted by Ministry of Environment and Forests on 20.7.2010. The petitioner has submitted that the "Tree cutting & Site clearance", "Foundation casting" "Erection of tower" took 12 -14 weeks, as no road is located in the hilly forest area. The petitioner has further submitted that delay was on account of heavy rains.

14. It is observed that one tower was to be constructed on 0.80 km stretch falling in the forest area for which environment clearance was given on 20.7.2010. For want of environment clearance, the work on construction of tower could not be started by the petitioner. It is reasonable to allow 12 -14 weeks time 'tree cutting and site clearance', foundation casting and erection of tower after the forest clearance was granted by Ministry of Environment and Forests. It also bears notice that because of heavy rains in the area in the month of October 2010, for which evidence in the form of newspaper cuttings has been produced; the work of construction of towers could not be taken up by the petitioner in right earnest. Keeping these factors in view, delay of 4 months against the total delay of 10 months in commissioning of Asset II is condoned."

(3.)THE only issue which arises for our consideration is whether the Central Commission is right in proceeding on the assumptions that after the forest clearance all the activities could have been completed by the Appellant within a period of 12 to 14 weeks and disallowing the delay of the remaining six months?