Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Petn.No.68/200225000 KVA to 3000 KVA. The Board, however, under its letter dt.15.7.1997informed the petitioner that he should approach the Board for reduction incontract demand on completion of the two year period of agreement i.e. after31.12.1997. The petitioner therefore once again approached the Board forreduction in contract demand from 1.1.1998. The Board, however, keptinexplicable silence. The petitioner understands that during those days, the policyon captive power plants was under consideration of the Government of Gujarat.The petitioner therefore, approached the Govt. of Gujarat, Energy &Petrochemicals Department to give appropriate provisional directions to theBoard until the formal Captive Power Policy of the state was announced. TheGovt.of Gujarat under its letter dt.2.7.1998 addressed to the Board permittedwheeling of power from captive power plant to group companies as well as to theown company at different locations and further directed that as against theexisting contract demand of 25000 KVA, the petitioner would pay as per reducedcontract demand of 6250 KVA. This arrangement was to be made effective from22.6.1998. Pursuant to the said direction of the Government, the Board under itsletter dated 18.7.1998 advised the petitioner that its contract demand standstemporarily reduced as a stop gap arrangement on ad hoc basis from 25000 KVAto 6250 KVA from 22.6.1998. Thereafter the Govt. of Gujarat announced thePolicy for Supply of Surplus Electrical Power to Group Companies &GEB/Licensees, Wheeling of power, etc. by Captive Power Projects under Energy& Petrochemicals Deptt. Resolution No.CCP 1197/2263/PP Cell dated 9.11.1998.As per para 10 of the said resolution, all ad hoc arrangements allowed forwheeling and reduction of contract demand were required to be regularized inaccordance with the provisions contained in the said resolution. Even though theBoard accepted reduction in contract demand from 22.6.1998, the petitionerreceived a letter dt.12.5.1999 in which the respondent Board took a U-turn andstated that its earlier decision of giving effect to reduction in demand from22.6.1998 was not correct and it has since been reviewed and that the reduction incontract demand would be effective from 9.11.1998 the date on which thePage 2 of 17