RAKESH NATH,TECHNICAL MEMBER - (1.) THIS Review Petition has been filed by Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. against the judgment dated 4.8.2011 of this Tribunal in appeal No. 199 of 2010.
(2.) THE review petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of this Tribunal on the following issues: i) Station Heat Rate for the FY 2009 -10 ii) Fixed cost on the basis of Availability Factor. The Review Petitioner has stated that there is error apparent on the face of the record in respect of the above findings.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the State Commission on the above issues. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted as under: 4.1. Station Heat Rate (SHR): While the Tribunal has set aside the SHR approved by the State Commission for the FY 2010 -11 for implementation of Capex schemes under the medium term, no relief has been granted for implementation of the immediate measures for the FY 2009 -10 and the same needs to be reconsidered. The CPRI recommendations, under the immediate measures, do not suggest improvement in O&M practices only. The said recommendations are a mix of monitoring, measurement and performance related schemes. The bulk of the improvement in performance is only related to the implementation of the specific schemes. The other recommendations pertaining to measurement of parameters, monitoring, etc., are meant to figure out the associated input materials and costs. CPRI recommended total of 935 non -financial schemes and 858 financial schemes in respect of the immediate measures. While the Review Petitioner has already implemented bulk of non - financial recommendations, however, the real improvement can be achieved only when the capital expenditure schemes are implemented. 4.2. Fixed cost based on Availability Factor: The CPRI recommendations are based on expected level of performance subject to fulfillment of certain preconditions. According to the recommendations of CPRI, the units of 210MW and above are capable of running at a PLF of 80% subject to focused attention on coal quality, R&M programmes, adherence to planned maintenance schedule, leakage control, operational optimization, etc. According to review petitioner, although efforts have been made to maximize use of washed coal, the quality of coal is an external factor and any loss of availability on this account needs to be given a different interpretation. Further, suitable time frame needs to be considered in implementation of the Renovation and Modernization programmes before any benefit is considered from the same. Implementation of R&M schemes was not feasible during the FY 2009 -10. 4.3. In support of his claim the learned counsel made elaborate submissions regarding the various recommendations of CPRI. He also relied on the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as in the matter of Rajinder Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Island and Ors. in which it was held that the courts should not hesitate to review its own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases. ;