LexBSES LTD. versus M/S. TATA POWER CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
BSES LTD.
v.
M/S. TATA POWER CO. LTD. AND ORS.
OCTOBER 1 7, 2003
[R.C. LAHOTI AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regulat01y Commissions Act, 1998-Sections 22(1)
and 29-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Third proviso to Para 1 of VJ
Schedule, Sections 57 and 57A-Standby facility of electric supply-
C Provided by State Electricity Board to Bulk licensee-Agreement to
provide standby facility to distribution licensee by bulk licensee out of the
reserved standby capacity-Notice by State Electricity Board to enhance
the charges for the facility-subsequent notice by bulk licensee under 1948
Act to distribution licensee to enhance the charges-Dispute between the
D two licensees regarding determination of the amount-Decision by State--
Powers to adjudicate the dispute, conferred upon Commission due to
enactment of 1998 Act-Formula for payment of charges for the facility
devised by Commission without following the procedure-High Court
remitted back the proceedings for de nova consideration-Adjudication of
Commission questioned-On appeal, held: The determination of the
E charges of standby facility falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission
because such determination falls within £he purview of Section 22(1) (a)
and (c)-Since the notice to enhance the charges was given under 1948
Act, and subsequent to 1998 Act, the notice has no legal effect-
Proceedings rightly remitted back to Commission for de novo consideration
F because procedure adopted by Commission was not fair.
Respondent company was electricity generating company and
bulk licencee. Pursuant to an agreement. Maharashtra State Electricity
Board (MSEB) provided standby facility of 550 MY A to respondent
company. Further the appellant company and the respondent company
G ware interconnected with each other anci respondent company provided
appellant company standby supply of 275 MVA out of the reserved
standby capacity, and appellant company was to pay a certain amount
to respondent company. MSEB served a notice to respondent company
intimating intention to enhance charges for the standby facility.
H Respondent company served notice under third proviso to Para 1 of
932
----
•
BSES LTD. v. MIS TATA POWER CO. LTD.
933
sixth Schedule to Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on appellant company A
for enhancement of charges of standby facility of 275 MV A. As a result
dispute arose between the two companies. State Government passed an
•
order dated 22.3.2000 directing the appellant company to pay respondent
company the standby charges at the rate of 50% of the amount. In the
meantime Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and B
Government conferred upon the Commission, powers to adjudicate
upon the dispute u/s 22(2)(n) of Electricity Regulatory Commissions
Act, 1998. Government thereafter inform.eel the parties that its decision
dated 22.3.2000 would be put to hold till the decision of the Commission.
The Commission devised .a .formula for determination of payment of
charges for standby facility which was to be paid by appellant company C
to respondent company. But the formula was worked out only by two
members of the Commission in meetings with the consultants and
without participation of the Chairman of the Commission. Majority of
the Commission decided the petition of the appellant company
determining the amount, while the Chairman gave a dissenting order. D
Appellant as well as respondent companies filed appeals. Both the
appeals were allowed by High Court and the proceedings were
remitted back to the Commission for de nova consideration. However,
High Court directed the appellant company to pay 50% of standby
charges for the period during pendency of the proceedings before the E
Commission.
In appeal to this court respondent company contended that the
dispute regarding sharing of standby charge is not an issue of tariff,
but is a dispute relating to sharing of the charges and hence does not
come within the purview of the Commission under section 22(1) of the F
Act; that the dispute had already been decided by the State Government,
hence the date on which the power under section 22(2){n) was
conferred upon the Commission there was no dispute existing between
the parties, and therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to
decide the petition of appe,llant company; that since respondent G
company was providing half of the standby facility to appellant
company, logically appellant· company should Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.