Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Petn.No.68/2002ought to have agreed to reduce contract demand with effect from 1.1.1998 afterexpiry of the period of agreement on 31.12.1997. The decision of the Board isincompatible with and contrary to the Government’s power policy with regard tothe captive power plants. The Board ought to have appreciated that the petitioner,(which installed the captive power plant) in fact augmented the power generationin the State of Gujarat right in the period when Gujarat was facing acute powershortage, and by running the industry with the help of captive power plant, hasalso generated additional manufacturing capacity and a perennial source ofrevenue to the Government earned on sale of its products and has also generatedemployment opportunities. Therefore, it is prayed by the petitioner to declare thebill dt.27.8.1999 for Rs.1,45,70,832.58 raised by the respondent Board as null andvoid. The petitioner has also prayed to give effect of reduction in contract demandfrom 25000 KVA to 3000 KVA with effect from 1.1.1998 with consequentialrelief in energy bills from 1.1.1998 onwards. Alternatively, the petitioner hasprayed to give effect of reduction in contract demand from 25000 KVA to 6250KVA with effect from 22.6.1998.[3] The Commission issued notice to the respondent and the respondent (GEB) filed areply contending inter alia that the GEB had already taken a stand to the effectthat initially the petitioner consumer was having contractual demand of 25000KVA. However, the said contractual demand was sought to be reduced by thepetitioner and accordingly, the petitioner approached the Government requestingthem to permit the petitioner to reduce the contractual demand to 6250 KVA from25000 KVA. At the relevant time, the CPP Policy was not in existence, but theprocedure of formation/ finalization of CPP Policy was in progress and theGovernment authorities were pleased to grant permission by communicationdt.2.7.1998 and on ad hoc basis, interim arrangement came to be made and loadreduction permission came to be granted on absolutely stop gap arrangement andthat too, subject to finalization of CPP Policy. It was also made clear that ifultimately the CPP policy prescribed other way round, then the petitioner willPage 4 of 17
Petn.No.68/2002have to pay additional charges of difference in this regard with 15% interest.Ultimately, the CPP policy came into existence on 9.11.1998. As per the saidpolicy, the petitioner had become entitled to get the benefit of load reduction by75% of the contractual demand. The said policy came to be introduced on9.11.1998 and therefore, the said policy could not have retrospective effect. Infact, the load reduction came to be granted by interim arrangement and, therefore,from 22.6.1998 to 9.11.1998, the petitioner became liable to make paymenttowards load reduction. Even the CPP policy was made effective from 9.11.1998and load reduction permission was granted as an interim arrangement and theultimate decision in this regard was made subject to the CPP policy. It is statedthat had the policy been given retrospective effect, then naturally the petitionerwould have become entitled to get the advantage. But admittedly, the policy is notgiven retrospective effect and, therefore, during the aforesaid period, even inrespect of load reduction which was absolutely an interim arrangement whichcould not have been treated as full-fledged permission granted by the authoritiesand, therefore, the petitioner became entitled to make payment. The respondenthas further submitted that the GEB authorities have already invoked provisions ofSection 9 of the Civil Procedure Code by way of preferring a suit in the court ofLearned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch for recovery of the amount of the bill whichis the subject matter of challenge before this Commission and, therefore, in viewof the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit is filed and ispending before the competent authority, this Commission may not entertain thepresent application and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs.3.1 The respondent has further submitted that if the present petitioner’s prayer isaccepted, then it would impose burden of more than Rs.46 crores upon the GEBexchequer and other similarly situated number of CPP consumers would also rushbefore the GEB and therefore also, it is prayed that since the petitioner is notlegally entitled to get any relief, no indulgence be shown and the presentapplication be dismissed. Any order which may be passed by the CommissionPage 5 of 17
Page 1 and 2: Petn.No.68/2002BEFORE THE GUJARAT E
Page 3: Petn.No.68/2002Government announced
Page 7 and 8: Petn.No.68/2002petitioner had appro
Page 9 and 10: Petn.No.68/2002along with the diffe
Page 11 and 12: Petn.No.68/2002(a) AIR 1986 SC 1499
Page 13 and 14: Petn.No.68/2002collecting details f
Page 15 and 16: Petn.No.68/2002K.P.Jangid were pres
Page 17: Petn.No.68/2002demand from 25000 KV

Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?