Skip to main content

State Commission cannot re-determine tariff of companies if already determined by Central Commission

In Bhakra-Beas Management Board (BBMB) v. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC),  order dated 6.09.2017, while deciding an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity  inter alia held that the State Commission overstepped its jurisdiction while limiting the liability of PSPCL towards the appellant and exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB.

The appellant, BBMB is a Generating Company involved in the inter-state transmission of electricity. Respondent 2, PSPCL is the successor entity of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board. The appeal was filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order passed by the State Commission wherein the State Commission determined the ARR and tariff of PSPCL for FY 2016-17, including the cost of generation and inter-state transmission of electricity from projects operated and maintained by the appellant.

The Tribunal while deciding the appeals dealt with the question that, whether in terms of Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule 8 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, the State Commission had jurisdiction to examine the methodology being followed by BBMB regarding apportionment of costs between its power and irrigation wing and whether the State Commission exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB?

The Tribunal perused the above-mentioned provisions and held that it is not open to the State Commission to re-determine the tariff of the generating companies whose tariff is determined by the Central Commission under Section 79 of the Act. What is left to the State Commission is that they may determine whether a Distribution Licensee in the State should enter into Power Purchase Agreement or procurement process with such generating companies based on the tariff determined by the Central Commission.

On the issue of jurisdiction, it was held that the Central Commission has the jurisdiction in matters of tariff related to the appellant and the State Commission was not supposed to adjudicate the tariff matters of the appellant. The State Commission went into the details of the submissions. This amounts to re-determination of the tariff of the appellant which falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Commission. The State Commission overstepped its jurisdiction while limiting the liability of PSPCL towards the appellant and also exceeded the scope of the order of this Tribunal by going into the issue of apportionment of costs between the power and irrigation wings of BBMB.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/10/05/state-commission-cannot-re-determine-tariff-of-companies-if-already-determined-by-central-commission-under-s-79-of-electricity-act/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more