M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. - (1.) BOTH these Appeals arise out of the same impugned order. Hence this common judgment is being rendered.
(2.) M /s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Karaikal is the Appellant in Appeal No.187 of 2011. M/s.Chemfab Alkalis Limited Puducherry is the Appellant in Appeal No.6 of 2012. The Electricity Department of Puducherry, Government of Puducherry and the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commissions are the Respondents in both these Appeals.
(3.) THE Appellants, being the consumers aggrieved over the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 fixing the Incremental Fuel Surcharge even without public notice and without hearing the consumers and interested parties have filed these Appeals. The short facts are as follows: (a) M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.187/2011 is a manufacturer of PVC Resins, Caustic Soda, Chloro Chemicals, Refrigerant Gases etc., The manufacturing facilities are located in various places both in Tamil Nadu as well as in Union Territories of Puducherry. The said Appellant entered into a Power Supply Agreement dated 19.7.2004 having a contracted demand of 14,650 KVA with the Electricity Department, Puducherry, the Respondent. (b) M/s. Chemfab Alkalises Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.6 of 2012 is having its factory in Kalapet, Puducherry. It is one of the consumers of the Electricity Department, Puducherry, the Respondent. (c) The Electricity Department, Puducherry, being a deemed licensee which is carrying on the business of transmission, distribution and retail supply of electricity in Puducherry, Kalapet and other places of the Union Territory of Puducherry, filed the Petition before the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for determining the tariff for the year 2009 -10. Accordingly, the Joint Commission passed the tariff order on 5.2.2010 fixing the Power Purchase Cost of the Electricity Department as per Chapter -5 and specified power purchase cost adjustment formula as per Chapter -6. (d) Under Regulation 7 of the 2009 Regulations, the Joint Commission notified the provision for fuel cost revision in accordance with fuel surcharge formula and pre -conditions attached thereto by which the escalation in Fuel cost would be determined and charged by the Electricity Department. (e) The Electricity Department, the Respondent has been raising the bills as per tariff determined by the State Commission by the tariff order and the Appellants have been paying the same. (f) The Electricity Department filed another Petition before the Joint Commission on 10.12.2010 praying for passing on to the consumers the Fuel Surcharge Cost of Rs.57.573 Crores in respect of the Financial Year 2009 -10 and 2010 -11. (g) The Joint Commission without issuing notice to the public passed the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 allowing the Incremental Fuel Surcharge and permitting the Electricity Department to collect from the consumers an amount of 34.25 Paise Per unit towards Fuel Surcharge cost. (h) The Appellants came to know about the impugned order which was passed on 12.8.2011 only on the receipt of the bills issued by Electricity Department directing the Appellants to pay the increased charges on the basis of the impugned order dated 12.8.2011. (i) Aggrieved over the said order, the Appellants have filed these Appeals. The Appellants assailing the impugned order have urged the following grounds: (a) Even though the Joint Commission had passed the tariff order on 5.2.2011, approving the Power Purchase Cost adjustments as per the Formula under Chapter -6 subject to 09 conditions, the Commission passed the impugned order without verification of the compliance of those conditions by following a different Formula. (b) U/S 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the tariff order can be amended once in a year under the terms of any Fuel Surcharge Formula. Under Regulation 15 (xi) of the JERC Conduct of Business Regulations, 2009, the Commission may issue notice to the affected parties before passing the order. In this case, neither notice was issued to the affected parties nor the Formula as specified in Tariff order dated 05.2.2010 was followed. (c) The impugned order is only cryptic order. The Joint Commission has not chosen to give any reasons for granting the relief sought for by the Electricity Department. Similarly, no reasons were given in the order as to why the notice was not issued to the public or the affected parties as per the Regulations. (d) This is not a case where levy of Fuel Surcharge involves only arithmetic and mechanical calculations. This is a case where the Power Purchase Cost adjustment Formula was specified in the tariff order and as per the Formula, 9 conditions have to be followed by the Electricity Department while seeking for the increase in the Power Purchase Cost. The Joint Commission, without verification of the same and using a different formula, passed the impugned order without proper calculation of the variation in the Power Purchase Cost. (e) On these grounds the impugned order is sought to be set aside. ;