M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) GRIDCO Limited is the Appellant herein.
(2.) M /s. Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU), the 1st Respondent, filed a Petition before the State Commission praying for a direction to GRIDCO to withdraw the Bill for the year end adjustments of Rs.12.80 Crore towards the excess drawal. This petition was allowed by the State Commission in favour of the CESU thereby disallowing the claim of GRIDCO against the CESU for Rs.12.80 Crores. Aggrieved by this order, the GRIDCO Limited has filed this present Appeal.
(3.) THE short facts are as follows: (a) GRIDCO Limited, the Appellant is carrying on the function of Bulk Supply of Electricity to the four distribution Companies including CESU the First Respondent. (b) On 18.9.1999, the Bulk Supply Agreement was entered into between the GRIDCO and Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa. The Bulk Supply tariff order was passed by the State Commission on 19.1.2001. As per the Bulk Supply order for the Financial Year 2000 -01, CESU (R -1) is liable to pay for excess drawal over and above their approved quantum of energy. (c) GRIDCO served the bill for the excess drawal of 89.6 MU amounting to Rs.12.80 Crore on R -1. This was served on 13.8.2003. (d) After a long lapse of time i.e. after 5 years, the CESU (R -1,filed a Petition on 3.6.2008 before the State Commission questioning the said bill and praying for a direction to GRIDCO to withdraw the said bill for the year end adjustment of Rs.12.80 Crores towards the excess drawal. (e) Since the Petitioner filed the Petition after a long delay, the State Commission sought for the explanation for the said delay. Accordingly, the CESU (R -1) filed the explanation for the delay on 4.11.2008. (f) After hearing the parties, the State Commission passed the impugned order dated 1.7.2009 allowing the Petition filed by CESU after condoning the delay. (g) Aggrieved by this order, the GRIDCO Limited has filed this Appeal challenging the order dated 1.7.2009 on the sole ground that the State Commission has condoned a long lapse of delay of 5 years in filing the Petition by R -1 even though the said delay has not been duly explained. According to the Appellant, there is no proper explanation whatsoever given by the CESU (R -1) for the unduly long delay of 5 years in filing the Petition and as such the impugned order granting the relief sought for by the CESU (R -1) after condoning the unexplained delay of 5 years is liable to be set - aside.;