- (1.) THE application has been made for review of order dated 7.1.2008 in Petition No. 22/1999, whereby the Commission had revised the annual fixed charges for Kayamkulam Combined Cycle Power Project, (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station"), for the period 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2004, in the light of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 14.11.2006 in Appeal No. 96/2005. THE applicant has accordingly prayed that the Appellate Tribunal's judgment may not be applied to the generating station, in view of the fact that the applicant's accounts for the year up to 2004-05 had been finalised.
(2.) Tariff for the generating station for the period 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2004 was awarded vide the Commission's order dated 5.3.2004, subsequently revised vide order dated 18.5.2004. While awarding tariff for all generating stations owned by the respondent, for calculating interest on loan, the Commission had considered normative repayment or actual repayment, whichever was higher. Similar methodology was followed while awarding and revising tariff for the generating station. The respondent, feeling aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the Commission for computation of interest on loan component of tariff, had filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 14.11.2006 in Appeal No. 96/2005, relating to Kawas Gas Power Station (Kawas GPS), inter alia, directed as under: The Central Commission shall adopt normative debt repayment methodology for working out the interest on loan liability for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001. The adjustment arising out of this be made in the future years. Based on the above direction of the Appellate Tribunal, the annual fixed charges for the generation station were revised by order dated 7.1.2008, considering the normative repayment of loan. The applicant has sought review of the order on the following grounds, namely: (a) Basis adopted by the Appellate Tribunal for arriving at normative debt repayment methodology is not applicable to the generating station which is a newer generating station, as compared to Kawas GPS whose financial package was approved long back in 1992. (b) The Commission has made the order dated 7.1.2008 suo motu, and without any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. (c) In terms of the order dated 7.1.2008, the applicant is required to pay an additional amount of Rs.173 lakh, which it cannot recover from the consumers since Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission has already settled the matter for the previous years.
(3.) WE have heard Shri Sathyanathan for the applicant, on admission. Under Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Commission is vested with the same powers, as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code), inter alia, for reviewing its decision, directions and orders. Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code lays down the detailed procedure for review. Under Rule 1, Order 47 of the Code, any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions, namely: (a) From the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or which, after the exercise of due diligence, could not be produced by him at the time the decree or order was passed; or (b) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or (c) For any other sufficient reason.;