CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. AND ORS versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 17-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. AND ORS. 
v. 
CENTRAL ELECTRICI1Y REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANR. 
AUGUST 17, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 1948 : ss. 79(J)(a),(h) and 28-Central c;ommission 
ordering application of Availability Based Tariff (ABT) to Simhadri thermal 
C station of NTPC-Jurisdiction of Central Commission to pass such an order, 
challenged-Held : Central Commission has plenary power to regulate Grid 
discipline-Maintenance of Grid discipline, envisaged under Grid Code, is 
regulated by mechanism of ABT and UJ charges-Hence Central Commission 
rightly exercised its jurisdiction-Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 
1998-Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and conditions of 
D Tari.IJ) Regulations, 2004-Regulation 15. 
Administrative law: Principles of natural justice-Suo moto ordet by 
Central Commission-By order dated 4.1.2000, Central Commission 
introduced ABT in phased manner-In terms of schedule, ABT scheme in 
respect ofSimhadri SPTS was made applicable w.ef 1. 12.2005-0n 4. 7.2005, 
E Central Commission suo moto ordered application of ABT to Simhadri SPTS 
w.ef 1.12.2005-Appellant challenged the order on the ground that it was 
passed suo moto and ex parte and was thus non est-Held : Appellant only 
challenged the order fixing a prospective date for implementation of ABT and 
not an order deciding rights and obligation-Having accepted the decision 
F taken on 4. 1.2000 without any demur, appellants not permitted now to say 
that implementation of scheme without hearing them is violation of principle 
of natural justice or bad or non est-Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 
1998-Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and conditions of 
Tariff) Regulations, 2004-Regulation 15-Electricity Act, 1948-ss. 
79(J)(a),(h) and 28. 
G 
H 
The Availability Based Tariff (ABl) was introduced in regard to number 
of generating stations of NTPC and other Central Sector generating stations 
under the orders of the CERC. Prior to the introduction of ABT, the fixed 
charges were payable by the purchasers based on the units of electricity 
1064 
) 
CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO., .. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
1065 
actually drawn by them. The scheme offixed charges liability based on drawls A 
allowed the purchasers of electricity to draw electricity from the Grid at their 
pleasure with no control. This led to the Grid Frequency to vacillate which 
cause grid collapse and blackouts in the entire region besides affecting the 
equipments of all generations, other electricity utilities and also the 
consumers. This has been a serious prejudice to public interest. 
B 
After the constitution of Central Commission under the Electricity 
Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, the Government of India referred the 
matter of introduction of ABT to the Central Commission. The State 
Electricity Boards including Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (the 
predecessor of the appellants) were part of the Regional and National Task C 
Forces constituted by the Government of India and also participated in the 
deliberation before the Central Commission. Pursuant to aforesaid consensus 
reached, the Central Commission considered the matter extensively in its 
order dated 4.1.2000 which spoke about introduction of ABT in a phased 
manner. However Commission in view of request of Powergrid/CTU to stagger 
the implementation of ABT so as to make satisfactory arrangements before D 
implementation issued a schedule. The ABT scheme in respect of Simhadri 
SPTS thermal station was made applicable w.e.f. 1.12.2005. 
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) suo moto 
ordered the application of Availability Based Tariff (ABl) to Simhadri SPTS 
thermal station of the NTPC with effect from 1.12.2005. On 4.7.2005, the E 
appellant challenged the said order before Appellate Tribunal which was 
dismissed. Hence present.appeal. 
The questions which have arisen for consideration in the present appeal 
are: Whether the application of Availability Based Tariff (ABl) in relation to F 
Unscheduled Interchange (UI) charges, which otherwise is not a component 
of tariff in terms of Regulation 15 of the Central Electricity Regulatory 
Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 are beyond 
the jurisdiction of the CERC; As such the impugned order passed by the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has completely ignored the fact that the 
CERC o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.