V.J.TALWAR,J. - (1.) APPELLANTS are distribution licensees in the state of Haryana. The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. Haryana Power Generation Company Limited is the 2nd Respondent.
(2.) THE Commission has passed an order dated 31.3.2011 in pursuance of directions issued to the Commission by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 31.7.2009 in Appeal No. 42 of 2008 and judgment dated 26.4.2010 in Appeal Nos. 72 of 2009 and 141 of 2009. Aggrieved by this order of the Commission, the Appellant has filed this Appeal.
(3.) BRIEF Facts of the case are as under: a. On 8.5.2007 the Commission had issued Tariff orders determining the generation tariff and for the bulk supply business of the Appellant for the FY 2007 -08. Aggrieved by these orders of the Commission the Appellant filed review petition before the Commission. The Commission disposed of the review petition by an order dated 26.9.2007 accepting few of the contentions of the Appellant and rejecting the rest of the Contentions. b. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commission dated 8.5.2007 and 26.9.2007 the Appellant filed Appeal No. 42 of 2008 against the generation tariff orders before this Tribunal. c. While the Appeal No. 42 was pending before the Tribunal, the Commission issued Tariff order on 21.4.2008 fixing the generation tariff for FY 2008 -09. The Appellant filed review petition against the order dated 21.4.2008, which was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 19.11.2008. d. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commission dated 21.4.2008 and 19.11.2008 the Appellant filed Appeal No. 72 of 2009 before this Tribunal. e. On 18.5.2009 the Commission passed tariff order fixing the generation tariff for the FY 2009 -10. Aggrieved by this order of the Commission dated 18.5.2009, the Appellant filed Appeal No. 141 of 2009 before this Tribunal. f. The Tribunal decided the Appeal No 42 of 2008 on 31.7.2009 directing the Commission, inter alia, to carry out a station -wise study to determine the Station Heat Rate of the power plants of the Appellant and to re -determine the Station Heat Rate based on the results of such study. g. The Tribunal decided the Appeal Nos 72 of 2009 and 141 of 2009 vide judgment dated 26.4.2010 and in respect of the issue of Station Heat Rate it reiterated the directions given to the Commission in Appeal No. 42 of 2008. h. In accordance with the directions of this Tribunal the Appellant got conducted the Energy Audit of its Panipat TPS (all units except unit no. 1 which was under R&M) and Unit No. 3 Faridabad TPS from Evonik Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. The report of energy audit was submitted in March - April 2010. The energy audit for Unit No. 1 & 2 Faridabad TPS could not be conducted as those units had been phased out by that time. i. The energy audit of Unit No. 1 at Panipat TPS could not be done along with other units. The same has now been done and as per the energy audit results for this unit, the Station Heat Rate has been tested at 2973.24 K.cal/kwh after its R&M. j. The Appellant submitted revised data for determination of Tariff for FY 2008 -09 and 2009 -10 to the Commission on 6.9.2010 for the implementation of directions given in Tribunal's Judgment dated 26.4.2010 in respect of Appellant's Appeal Nos. 72 & 141 of 2009. k. On 16.9.2010 the Appellant submitted the revised tariff sheet for the FY 2007 -08 on the basis of the Energy Audit Reports for the implementation of the Tribunal Judgment dated 31.7.2009 in respect of Appellant's Appeal Nos. 42 & 43 of 2008. l. The Commission passed a common order implementing the directions of this Tribunal given in Appeal No. 42 of 2008, Appeal No. 72 & 141 of 2009. m. Aggrieved by this implementation order of the Commission dated 31.3.2011, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. Before we deal with the issues raised in this Appeal, it would be desirable to address important two issues that came up during the proceedings. These issues are: i). Maintainability of the appeal raised by 2nd Respondent Generating Company ii). impugned order being violative of Section 64 and 86 of the 2003 Act as alleged by the Appellant;