MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. & ANR. M/S DHAR WIND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus M/S DHAR WIND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 25-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. &
ANR.
v.
M/S DHAR WIND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9218-9219 of 2018)
JULY 25, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Electricity Act, 2003: ss. 61 and 86(1)(e) – Procurement of
power from Wind Electricity Generator – Issuance of Tariff Order –
Tariff Order dated 26.03.13 prescribing rate of Rs 5.92 per unit for
the project commissioned during the period from 01.04.13 till
31.03.16 – New Tariff order dated 17.03.16 whereby earlier tariff
order at Rs. 5.92 per unit reduced to Rs. 4.78 per unit, for project
commissioned on or after 01.04.2016 – First respondent seeking
benefit of the unit rate of Rs. 5.92 fixed under the earlier tariff
order on the basis that it commissioned its project on 31.03.2016 –
Appellant’s case that on the basis of the data provided, power was
injected into the grid on or from 01.04.2016, thus, not entitled to
benefit of the unit rate of Rs. 5.92, and as such would not enter into
Power Purchase Agreement under the earlier tariff order – Writ
petition by the first respondent – Allowed by the High Court –
Issuance of direction to first appellant to enter into a PPA with the
first respondent for the purchase of electricity at the rate of Rs 5.92
per unit – Thereafter, the appellant revoked the certificate of
commissioning – Review petition filed thereagainst, dismissed –
Second set of writ petition, wherein the High Court stayed the
revocation – On appeal, held: Project of the first respondent was
commissioned on 1 April 2016 since the SLDC data indicates the
injection of power into the grid with effect from that date – However,
it would be unfair to deny to the first respondent the benefit of the
rate which came to be prescribed by the Tariff Order dated 17.03.16
– Rate prescribed by Tariff Order of Rs 4.78 per unit was to apply
during the control period beginning from 01.04.2016 and ending
on 31.03.2019 and that rate would continue to govern the life cycle
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 73
73
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
of 25 years – First respondent cannot be denied a parity of treatment,
as has been allowed to other projects of a similar nature which
would be governed by the control period stipulated in the Tariff
Order dated 17.03.2016 – Orders of the High Court set aside –
First respondent entitled to the benefit of the Tariff Order dated
17.03.2016 – Appellants to process the application of the first
respondent for execution of a PPA on that basis.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tariff Order of March 2013 stipulated that
it would be applicable to all new wind electric generation projects
which were commissioned on or after 1 April 2013 for the sale of
electricity to distribution licensees in the State. The control period
of the Tariff Order commenced on 1 April 2013 and would end on
31 March 2016. The Tariff Order fixed a levelized tariff of Rs
5.92 per unit for new wind energy projects to be commissioned
after the issuance of the Order for a project life of 25 years. Para
12.30 provided that all existing projects which were
commissioned before 1 April 2013 would be governed by the
terms and conditions applicable at the time of commissioning.
Hence, the crucial ingredient in determining the tariff was the
actual date on which the project was commissioned. The Tariff
Order of 17 March 2016 which replaced the earlier Tariff Order
applied to all new wind electric generation projects which were
commissioned at 00.00 hrs on 1 April 2016 or thereafter. The
SLDC was required by Para 4.2 of the Tariff Order to submit a
list of WEGs commissioned during the month of March 2016 from
00.00 hrs of 1 March 2016 to 24.00 hrs of 31 March 2016. This
data was sought in order to provide an objective basis of
determining whether a project had been commissioned before
the new Tariff Order became applicable to projects which were
commissioned with effect from 1 April 2016. [Para 22] [82-F-H;
83-A-G]
1.2 In line with the said provisions, the guidelines that were
issued by the first appellant on 18 March 2016 provided a format
for the issuance of commissioning certificates. The format
required readings of: (i) WTG meters; (ii) main billing meters;
and (iii) check billing meters. The format required the submission
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
of this data in order to establish the date on which a particular
project had been commissioned. The actual date of commissioning
would dete
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.