RAKESH NATH, J. - (1.) THE Review Petitioners/Appellants are seeking a review of the findings of this Tribunal on the issue relating to impact of increase in CPI/WPI on Operation and Maintenance expenses in true -up in its judgment dated 12.7.2011 passed in Appeal nos. 142 and 147 of 2009.
(2.) IN the above Appeals, the Review Petitioners/Appellants had challenged the order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("State Commission") in the matter of true -up for the FY 2007 -08 and determination of ARR and tariff for the FY 2009 -10. One of the issues agitated by the Review Petitioners/Appellants was regarding the failure of the State Commission in truing up the impact of increase in CPI/WPI on O&M expenses. The Tribunal decided this issue on the basis of its earlier judgment dated 31.5.2011 in Appeal No. 52 of 2008 in the matter of North Delhi Power Limited vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission. Although the Tribunal agreed with the contention of the Review Petitioners/Appellants that for determining the O&M expenses for the FY 2007 -08, the indexation factor should be based on CPI and WPI figures for the period 2002 -03 to 2006 -07, it rejected their contention that the State Commission should have determined the inflation factor for each year of the control period on rolling basis.
(3.) THE Review Petitioners/Appellants have urged in these Review Petitions that there was an error apparent on the face of the findings as the Tribunal had not considered the following: a) The Appeals filed by the Appellants related to the interpretation of Regulation 5.4 of the MYT Tariff Regulations. It is a fundamental principle of tariff fixation itself that tariff has to be revised on an annualized basis, in particular for uncontrollable factors and any elements within controllable factors specifically so provided for and this principle pervades the MYT Regulations. b) The Regulations use the word "annual" in relation to various elements of tariff. Although a multi -year tariff is determined with the principle of truing up whereby the appropriate rate of return is made available on each year and not on a 4 -year or a 5 -year control period basis. In doing so, on a 4 -year basis would lead to grave hardship to the consumers in a period where the 4 years reflected a decline in inflation and conversely lead to shortage of funds and losses in a period of growing inflation. c) Regulation 4.16 provides that the truing up has to be "every year" where it relates to variation in revenue/expenditure. d) Regulation 5.4 provides the principle for determination of ARR which is to be determined as per Regulation 5.1, for "each year of the control period". The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners/Appellants argued extensively referring to clauses 4.16, 5.4, 11.2 of the MYT Regulations and para 1.20 of the Explanatory Note of the MYT Regulations, 2007 in support of his arguments. He further argued that the Tribunal relied on the CERC Regulations, 2009 while deciding the present issue in Appeal No. 52 of 2008. It is further contended that the Central Commission's Tariff Regulations provide for a fixed escalation rate to be used for the entire control period but on the contrary the MYT Regulations of the Delhi State Commission provide for a formula to be used every year to determine the O&M expenses and that therefore, Central Commission's Regulations is not para -materia with the State Commission's Regulations and accordingly, cannot be relied upon.;