MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN MISHRA,J. -
(1.)The appeal has been preferred by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short, 'the MSEDCL') against the
order dated 30.5.2007, passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for
short, 'the APTEL'), dismissing the appeal against the order dated
21.5.2004 passed by Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, 'the MERC'), quashing Circular No.602 dated
23.7.1998, Circular No.619 dated 25.5.1999, Circular No.627 dated 2.9.1999, Circular No.651 dated 19.9.2000 and Circular No.663 dated 5.10.2001, insofar as they purport to impose "take or pay" obligation and minimum offtake requirement as also of any additional tariff for
captive power plant holders on the ground that there was no approval
of the MERC constituted in terms of the provisions of the Electricity
Regulatory Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act of 1998'). The aforesaid
circulars dealt with Captive Power Plant Policy (for short, 'the CPP
Policy'). The appellantMSEDCL has been directed to make refund to
respondent nos.3 to 7. The financial liability has been imposed upon
the appellantMSEDCL. The MERC was constituted on 5.8.1999. The
appellantMSEDCL had submitted all its circulars to MERC for
approval and the MERC after four years has quashed the circulars
with retrospective effect. The financial condition of the appellant
MSEDCL is not sound enough to sustain such kind of liability for
refund. It was unable to pay a sum of Rs.504 crores as against
liability to other parties.
(2.)Respondent no.3M/s. NRC Ltd. initially had its two units on Plot No.E 23. Unit Nos.1 and 2 had a contract demand of 3500 KVA
and 1800 KVA respectively. In 1995, an independent connection was
sought by respondent no.3 for its Unit No.2. Representation was
made that two units were separate units and on that basis, two
independent connections were given. After that, respondent no.3 filed
an application dated 5.4.1997 to set up a CPP of 7MW capacity. In
respect of contract demand, it was proposed to retain total contract
demand for 812 months after the CPP was fully operational and to
surrender around 50% of the contract demand after that. Prayer was
also made to provide standby power.
(3.)The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 20.12.1997, whereby it empowered Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, 'the MSEB') to finalise the technical and commercial
arrangements between captive power purchasers and their party
purchasers. No objection certificate dated 7.1.1998 was issued by
appellantMSEDCL subject to the Condition No.4, which permitted
respondent no.3 to decide the level of contract demand after the
commissioning of the set and any changes for interconnection would
be governed as per the Board's Condition of Supply framed from time
to time and its policies as no rules were framed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.