TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED versus M/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 29-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · 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
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF
ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED
v.
M/S RAIN CALCINING LIMITED & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 2003)
NOVEMBER 29, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998: ss.11, 26 –
Competence of APERC (Commission) to determine Wheeling
Charges – s.11 primarily deal with the generation, transmission,
and distribution – These three processes suggest that s.11 does
include in its ken the power to fix the wheeling charges relating
to the generation, transmission, distribution, supply, and utilization
of electricity – The distribution is not possible without transmission
– The Commission is the regulator for transmission and, therefore,
has  the power to fix the wheeling charges – Under 1999
Regulations, various agreements have also been amended, and
there is plenary power to prescribe the tariff and charges
concerning Transmission and Bulk Supply or Distribution and
Retail Supply as provided in Regulation 45-A(2) – Under
Regulation 45-A(8), upon hearing the licensee and such other
parties, the Commission make an order and notify the licensee of
its decision on the revenue calculations and tariff proposals, as
provided in s.26(5) of the Reforms Act, 1998 – Thus, the
Commission can exercise the power of fixation of such charges,
which power is legislative – There is no question of attracting the
equitable principles of promissory estoppel, as there was no
unequivocal promise in this case, and statutory provision can make
inroad and supersede the contracts – Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
– Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Business
Rules of the Commission), Regulations, 1999.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998: Competence
of Commission to determine Grid Support Charges – Commission
by order dated 8.2.2002 held that Grid Support Charges would
be payable at the rate of 50% of prevailing demand charges on
the differential of CPP capacity and CMD – Propriety – Held:
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 474
474
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
Under s.11 read with s.26 of the Reforms Act, 1998, all fixed
charges under the distribution and Grid Support Charges are
leviable only at the instance of a distribution company, and the
Commission has the powers to determine it.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998:  Whether
Government Orders issued on 18.11.1997 and 22.12.1998, by the
Andhra Pradesh Government, extending specific incentives to the
producers of electricity from non-conventional energy resources,
are binding and Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel against the
Government and Commission was bound to give effect to them –
Held: Plea of promissory estoppel is not attracted, as there was
no unequivocal promise – The Regulatory Commission had power
of reviewing the tariff and incentives – There was no unequivocal
commitment to the respondent/purchasers/generators/developers to
bind the State for all times to come –  There was no definite,
unambiguous representation, hence plea of estoppel was not
attracted.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998: Object of
enactment – Discussed.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998: APTRANSCO
– Constitution and functions – Discussed.
Administrative Law: Judicial review – Tariff determination
by APERC (Commission) –Scope of interference – Held: Once the
expert body has determined specific tariffs, it is not for the Court
to interfere ordinarily in such matters – In the instant case, the
determination of tariff by the Commission was proper and did not
suffer from any infirmity or illegality – The Commission made an
elaborate discussion for arriving at the figure – The recovery
network charges, tariff structure, and the question of wheeling
charges in cash or kind were also considered – Interference not
called for.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
1. IN RE: COMPETENCE OF APERC TO DETERMINE
WHEELING CHARGES
1.1 Section 11 of the Reforms Act, 1998 deals with the
TRANSMISSION CORP. OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD. v.
M/S RAIN CALCINING LTD. & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
functions of the Commission. Under Section 11(1)(a), the
Commission shall aid and advise in matters concerning
electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply in
the State.  Section 11(1)(b) empowers the Commission to
regulate the working of the licensees and to promote their
working in an efficient, economical, and equitable manner.  The
Commission unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.