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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more