- (1.) THE interlocutory application has been made by Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited with a prayer to give effect to the order dated 7.7.2006 made by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity by deleting Para 37 of the order dated 31.3.2005 in the main petition, with a further prayer to delete 16% ROE and interest on the loan provided in the tariff order dated 9.5.2006 (for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009) in Petition No. 142/2004 and with a direction to Central Utilities for refund of the amount to the applicant and other beneficiaries.
(2.) The Commission, in its order dated 31.3.2005 in Petition No. 139/2004 had approved additional capitalization on works amounting to Rs. 4.521 crore for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 in respect of Feroze Gandhi Uchahar Thermal Power Station. In Para 37 of the said order dated 31.3.2005, it was directed that NTPC would earn return on equity and interest on loan for the additional capitalization approved from 1st April of the financial year following the financial year to which additional capital expenditure related and the lump sum amount was payable along with tariff for the period 2004-09. Accordingly, return on equity and interest on loan have already been computed in the order dated 9.5.2006 in Petition No. 142/2004, while approving tariff for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009. The applicant filed an appeal against the Commission's order dated 31.3.2005. The Appellate Tribunal, by its judgment dated 7.7.2006, ordered as under: When the regulation bars revision of tariff during the tariff period ending with 31.03.2004 it follows that there could be no revision of the tariff during the tariff period whatever may be the reason or justification when the additional expenditure is less than 20% of the approved project cost. There is no controversy in this respect. In the circumstances, the direction issued by CERC as set out in Para 37 calls for modification. In fixing the tariff for the tariff period commencing 01.04.2004, the element of interest and investment of return on equity requires to be examined by CERC and included for the purpose of determining the tariff as rightly highlighted by Mr. Ramachandran on behalf of the appellant but there is no warrant to issue such a direction now. In the circumstances, we order deletion of Para 37 of the order appealed against while making it clear that it is well open to CERC to consider the element, namely additional capitalisation return on equity, interest on borrowing, while determining the tariff for the next tariff period. The appeal is dismissed but with the above modification.
(3.) THE present application has been made with the substantive prayers noted in the opening part of the order against the above background.;