POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 03-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 116 
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9193 of2012) 
MARCH 03, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and 
Conditions of Tariff) Regulation, 2009: Regns. 2, 3(12) -
Transmission Tariff - Determination of - Date of Commercial 
operation - Appellant is transmission licencee - Constructed ./00 
KV Barh-Balia double circuit transmission - Respondent no. I is 
one of the beneficiaries - Construction of sub-station including 
switchgear and protection system at the Barh end was within the 
scope of work undertaken by NTPC - Appel/am filed petition before 
CERC for determination of Transmission Tariff for the period 
I. 7.20IO to 3I.3.201./ - Petition \\'OS heard and till that date 
respondent no. I had not raised any objection - Matter was reserved 
for judgment - Thereafter respondent no. I filed an affidavit stating 
that the line was not operational - CERC decided the tariff w.ej 
I. 7.2010 payable by beneficiaries - Appeal by respondent no. I -
Tribunal remanded the matter accepting the plea of respondent no. l 
that since condition of trial operation and regulatory services were 
not fulfilled as such Commission erred in declaring tariff - On 
appeals, held: Switchgear and other works are part of transmission 
lines by virtue of its definition in s.2(72) - Switchgear at Barh end 
of Barh-Balia line for protection and metering were to be installed 
by NTPC and the same was not done by it when transmission line 
was completed by the appellant - As such the appellant might have 
suffered due to delay on the part of NTPC in completing the 
transmission lines for some period - But beneficiaries, including 
respondent No. 1, cannot be made liable to pay for this delay w.ej 
OI.07.2010 as the energy supply line had not started on said date 
and. beneficiaries could not be made liable to pay the tariff before 
transmission line was operational. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: COD of transmission lines can he achieved only on 
fulfillment of following three conditions: The line has been charged 
116 
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. PUNJAB 
117 
STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. 
successfully, its trial operation has been successfully carried out, A 
and it is in regular service. Switchgear and other works are part 
of transmission lines. Regulation 3(12) of the Regulations, 2009 
cannot he interpreted against the spirit of the definition of 
"transmission lines" given in the statute. It is not a disputed 
fact that switchgear at Barh end of Barh-Balia line for protection 
and metering were to he installed by NTPC and the same was 
not done by it when transmission line was completed by the 
appellant. As such the appellant might have suffered due to delay 
B 
on the part of NTPC in completing the transmission lines for 
some period. But beneficiaries, including respondent no.I, 
cannot be made liable to pay for this delay w.e.f. 01.07.2010 as 
C 
the energy supply line had not started on said date. Meanwhile 
during the pendency of these appeals, in compliance of the interim 
order, after hearing all the concerned parties, C.E.R.C. has 
decided the matter on 30-06-2015, and transmission line has been 
now declared successfully charged w.e.f. 01-09-2011 and the 
D 
commercial operation has started on said date. However, the 
M·der dated 30-06-2015 passed by C.E.R.C. is stated to be 
operative subject to decision of this Court in the present appeals, 
due to the interim order passed by this court. Respondent No. 1 
and _the beneficiaries cou.Jd not have been made liable to pay the 
tariff before transmission line was operational, there is no infirmity 
in the impugned order. [Paras 7, 11, 12, 13) [120-H; 121-A-B, G-
B; 122-A-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9193 
of2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2012 of the Appellate 
Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 123 of2011 
WITH 
C.A. NO. 9302 OF 2012 
E 
F 
C. A. Sundaram; Sr. Adv., M. G. Ramachandran, Pramod Dayal, 
G 
Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Paya! Dayal, Ms. Swana Shcshadri,Anand Ganesan, 
Advs. with him fortheAppellant. 
Subromonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Abhay Kumar, Tenzing, Ashmit 
Singh, Pradeep Misra, Vishal Anand, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Sum it 
Kumar Vats, Advs., with him for the Respondents. 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.