- (1.) THIS Review Petition has been filed to review judgment dated 26.11.2014 of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 333 of 2013 which was decided along with Appeal No. 294 of 2013 and batch. The Review Petitioner is aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.11.2014 since three out of five issues raised in the Appeal were not dealt with in the judgment despite oral and written submissions. These issues are refusal to fix maximum ceiling tariff as required under Section 62(1)(d), refusal to determine only wheeling charges for open access consumers as mandated by Section 86(1)(a) and levy of wheeling charges on RInfra's own consumer contrary to law. Further, even while deciding issue of Regulatory Asset Charges ("RAC"), the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the written note of arguments of the Review Petitioner/Appellant.
(2.) ON the above issues we have heard Mr. Shirish V. Deshpande, for the Review Petitioner and Shri Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Learned Counsel for the State Commission. Let us take up the issues raised by the Review Petitioner one by one.
(3.) THE first issue is refusal to fix maximum ceiling rate of tariff. We find that this issue was raised by the Review Petitioner/Appellant in the main Appeal but was not dealt directly by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. According to the Review Petitioner the State Commission should have fixed the maximum ceiling tariff for the licence area common to RInfra and Tata Power as provided for under Section 62(1)(d) of the Electricity Act. The State Commission instead of fixing ceiling tariff has determined retail supply tariff for each licensee thus denying the benefit of competition to the consumers. The reasons given by the State Commission for not accepting their suggestions for ceiling tariff are not valid.;