M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) UNION of India, Southern Railway is the Appellant herein.
(2.) THE orders dated 29.6.2009 and 01.4.2010 passed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Regulatory Commission are challenged in this Appeal filed by Southern Railway.
(3.) THE Appellant filed a Review Petition in RP No.2/2009 before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) seeking for the review of the its order dated 29.6.2009. The petition was dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 1.4.2010. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal against the orders dated 29.6.2009 and 1.4.2010. The short facts are as follows: I. Union of India, Southern Railway is the Appellant herein. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the 1st Respondent. Southern Railway, the Appellant availed power supply at 110 KV for 20 traction substations from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on Chennai -Coimbatore, Gummidipundi -Chennai - Tiruchchirappalli sections for running electric locomotive hauled trains and EMU services. II. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the 1st Respondent unilaterally introduced a modified system of metering during the period between January, 2005 and August, 2006 in which leading kVAh was also taken into consideration for computing billing power factor, which hitherto was ignored and leading power factor was treated as unity power factor. III. The Southern Railway, the Appellant, filed a Petition before the State Commission in MP No.5 of 2006 aggrieved by the implementation of the modified metering software system by the 1st Respondent Electricity Board praying the State Commission to direct 1st Respondent to adopt lag only logic for metering Railway Traction Load. The State Commission by its order dated 2.4.2007, rejected the said prayer. However, State Commission directed the 1st Respondent Electricity Board to defer implementation of the new metering software system for a period of three years from 01.04.2007 to 31.3.2010 and directed the Appellant to install suitable Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation (DRPC) equipment at all Traction Sub Stations within the said 3 years. IV. Accordingly, the Southern Railway initiated action for installing Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation equipment at all the Traction Sub Stations after obtaining sanctions from the Railway Board. V. The Appellant conducted a study for obtaining Carbon Credit after receipt of detailed technical offers for DRPC equipment. In the process, it was found that the energy loss in DRPC equipment installed at two locations was many fold higher than the energy loss in fixed HT Capacitor banks installed earlier. VI. On noticing that the use of the DRPC equipment causes significant energy loss, the Appellant filed a Petition before the State Commission in MP No.3 of 2009 with a prayer to direct the 1st Respondent Electricity Board to consider the special nature of the Railway Traction load and to adopt 'Lag Only' logic for computing billing power factor for Railway Traction Load and to allow the Appellant to continue with the HT fixed shunt capacitor banks for reactive power compensation at Traction Sub Stations. VII. However, by the order dated 29.6.2009, the State Commission dismissed the Petition on the ground that the issue had already been decided in the earlier order dated 2.4.2007 and as such, the Petitioner could not seek for the review of the original order dated 2.4.2007 by filing this Petition that too in the year 2009 which was barred by limitation. Since this order dated 29.6.2009 did not deal with the grievance of the Appellant that DRPC equipment installed have caused significant additional energy loss, the Appellant filed a Review Petition in RP No.2 of 2009 on 29.7.2009 praying for the review of the order dated 29.6.2009 on merits by reconsidering the facts indicating the energy loss actually incurred. VIII. However, the State Commission dismissed the Review Petition on 1.4.2010 as no ground was made out for 2nd review. IX. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal as against both the orders dated 29.6.2009 and 1.4.2010. Along with this Appeal, the Appellant filed an application to condone the delay, and the same was condoned. ;