SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE present petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, seeks to assail certain clauses of the Power Generation Policy, 2010 for the State of Punjab as being violative of para 5.1 of the Tariff Policy read with Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The specific clauses sought to be assailed are 1.5, 9.1, 10.3, 10.7 and 10.8. The alternative prayer is that the Power Generation Policy be reviewed and suitably amended to bring it in conformity with the Tariff Policy and the said Act.
(2.) PETITIONER is a retired Additional Superintending Engineer of the Punjab State Electricity Board and he claims that the Board is on the verge of a financial collapse due to the instructions and policies of the Punjab Government, which are directly in conflict with the regulatory Statute. The petitioner pleads that the Regulatory Commissions, both at the Central and the State level, have been constituted under Sections 76 and 82 of the said Act, respectively. Qua the issue of tariff determination by the Regulatory Commissions, there are stated to be two methodologies ­ (i) the cost plus approach, which is stated to be based on 'first come first serve' principle, and (ii) competitive bidding method to be carried out as per the guidelines notified by the Government of India. In this context, Part VII of the said Act deals with tariff and Section 61 of the said Act authorises the Appropriate Commission to determine the tariff, guided by the factors set out in the said Section. The first alternative is stated to be in accordance with Section 62 while the second one is as per Section 63 of the said Act. The Tariff Policy, in turn, is issued by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments and the Authority for development of the power system, as per sub -Section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, which is stated to have been so issued on 5.1.2006. This Tariff Policy, in clause 5.1, provided for future procurement of power through competitive bidding process but gave a five years' relaxation to Government companies to set up new generation systems without opting for the open auction bidding route.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on analysis of competitive bid tariff of 14 thermal projects as compared to those which had cost plus approach, 12 out of 14 projects showed that the competitive bidding tariffs were substantially lower. This competitive bidding process is stated to have been applied to 1980 Mega Watts Talwandi Sabo Thermal Project and, thereafter, to 1320 Mega Watts Rajpura Thermal Project.;