Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Petn.No.68/2002before the GERC. In short the dispute with regard to the payment of the demandraised by the respondent Board is pending for adjudication.”In the light of the aforesaid, Shri Rakesh Gupta submitted that the High Court hasnot given any decision on this issue and has observed that it is for theCommission to decide this issue.He further submitted as follows :(i)During the entire period (22.6.1998 – 9.11.1998) the Petitioner’s demandcatered to by GEB was only 6250 KVA and as such they can not charge for25000 KVA.(ii) Clause 10 of the Government CPP Policy dated 9.11.98 states as follows :“All the adhoc arrangements allowed for wheeling and reduction ofcontract demand shall be regularized in accordance with the provisionscontained in the regulation.”According to Shri Rakesh Gupta, this clause has been specifically inserted tofacilitate regularization of adhoc arrangements of reduction in contract demandw.e.f. 22.6.1998. If it were to be argued that earlier adhoc arrangements forreduction in contract demand were only to be regularized prospectively afterannouncement of this Policy i.e. CPP Policy dated 9.11.98, there was no need tospecifically insert this clause as without this clause also the reduction in contractdemand upto a level of 25% (as per clause 8 of this Policy) would have beenpermitted. He argued that according to several judgments which he cited in thisregard (given below) no provision can be interpreted in a way to make itredundant.Page 10 of 17