P.S.DATTA, JUDICIAL, J. - (1.) A volley of questions while deciding the four appeals arise: a) whether the Commission can determine or enhance the bulk supply tariff at a flat rate applicable to different licensees in their respective areas of distribution? ,b) whether the parameters laid down in section 61 of the Act should not be followed?, c)whether, more particularly, criteria such as costs, expenses, availability of power, consumer base, consumer mix, efficiency of operations, financial viability of each licensee, distribution loss, geographical position which would vary from licensee to licensee should not have been considered?, d) whether there can be a uniform increase of bulk supply tariff applicable to the different licensees, e) whether in revising the bulk supply tariff the consumers of different licensees have really subsidized the consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board?, f) whether there can be a provisional hike in bulk supply tariff as done by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in the impugned order?, g) whether there can be increase of bulk supply tariff without increase or revision of retail supply tariff of each distribution licensee purchasing power from the Kerala State Electricity Board?, h) whether the Commission is absolutely unlawful on the facts and circumstances of the case as was presented before it by the KSEB in revising the Bulk Supply Tariff ? In the body of this judgement we will be addressing to these questions.
(2.) APPEAL No 25 of 2011, appeal No 107 0f 2011, appeal No. 127 of 2011 and appeal No. 151 of 2011 preferred by Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Kinesco Power and Utilities Pvt. Ltd., Cochin Special Economic Zone, and Cochin Port Trust respectively are being disposed of by this Judgment and order in view of all the four appeals being directed against the order dated 13.12.2010 common to all the appellants(as also others who have not come up in this appeal) passed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission in a suo motu proceeding whereby the Commission increased the Bulk Supply Tariff (BST) chargeable against these appellants and others, who are all distribution licensees, by the Kerala State Electricity Board, one of the respondents herein, who qua the appellants are suppliers of electricity. In all the appeals some grounds are common while some are alleged to be special and peculiar in respect of the respective appellants. So far as the Kerala State Electricity Board and the State Commission are concerned, their approach is uniform vis -à - vis the appellants. For proper appreciation of the merit of each of the appeals it is better to mention the facts pleaded by each of the appellants where after upon recording the contentions of the respondents we will proceed to the deliberations of the four appeals.
(3.) CONTENTION of the appellant in appeal No. 25 of 2011. This appellant, a successor in interest of M/S Tata Tea Limited is said to be a employee -owned company with a total labour strength of 13,000 and 97% of them are shareholders of this company. It supplies electrical energy to its tea estates, factories, residence of the employees, and other utilities in and around Munnar in the State of Kerala. On 24.7.2009 the Board filed a tariff application before the Commission proposing therein a flat increase of 25% in the existing BST applicable to the licensees and bulk consumers but the Commission in its tariff order dated 2.12.2009 deferred the revision of BST as was proposed by the Board till the Commission was able to examine the ARRs and ERCs for the year 2010 -2011. Then, the Commission suo motu took up the matter after the ARRs and ERCs for the year 2010 -2011 of the licensees were finalised. Like other appellants the present appellant also had put in objections but the Commission after overruling the objections passed the impugned order enhancing the BST uniformly at 15% in energy charges which according to the appellants, has serious financial impact upon its distribution business. The grounds urged before the Commission as also this Tribunal are as follows: a) BST should be based on the consumer mix of each licensee and no uniform increase of tariff should be implemented. b) The appellant's Aggregate Revenue Requirement and Expected Revenue Charge for Financial Year 2010 -11 reflects a surplus of only Rs.6.23 lac even after incorporating the increase in the appellant's BST as envisaged in the previous revision with effect from 1.12.2007. c) The surplus of Rs 6.23 lac is still on higher side as it was estimated by disallowing certain genuine expenses and arbitrarily enhancing the income. d) This enhancement would entail power purchase cost of Rs 165 lac causing deficit of Rs.159 lac. e) The appellant serves the rural hilly terrain mainly to plantation labourers consuming power at the subsidized minimum domestic tariff and to the tea factories operating in the area which are not at all conducive to, nor warranted by the enhancement of the BST. f) Actual cost of distribution of the appellant has not been considered. g) The proposed tariff at Rs.3.12 per kWh (Rs3.28 per kWh less 5% rebate) is irrational, illegal and without justification. The tariff of Rs.3.12 per kWh would amount to Rs.3.63 per kWh of saleable units after providing for the permitted line loss of 14%. In the year 2009 -10 out of 34.57 million units kWh actually sold /self consumed only 4.16 million units were billed at a energy tariff of more than Rs3.63 per kWh. This would lead to a precarious situation whereby the appellant will have to purchase power for supplying power to the tea factories operating in the area at Rs.3.63 per unit and supply to them at Rs3.00 per unit thereby rendering the entire operations unviable. h) The small amount of surplus would be exhausted within a period of few months if BST is increased in the case of the appellant ;