Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Petn.No.68/2002accordance with the final policy that may be decided by the State Governmentabout Captive Power Plant. Subsequently, the State Government has finalized theCPP policy vide G.R.No.CPP-1197-2253-PP Cell dated 9.11.98. As per the clauseno.10 of the G.R. all the adhoc arrangements allowed for wheeling and reductionof contract demand shall be regularized in accordance with the provisionscontained in the resolution.”[11] Thereafter the petition was kept for hearing on 9.3.2006. On that day, LearnedAdvocate S/Shri Abhishek Mehta and Rakesh Gupta for Trivedi & Gupta andShri B.K.Anand, DGM were present on behalf of the petitioners. S/ShriJ.M.Vachhani, Kamlesh Jahangir, P.J.Jani were present on behalf of GUVNL,S/Shri B.N.Mehta, K.M.Patel were present on behalf of DGVCL. LearnedAdvocate Shri Nirav Majmudar was present on behalf of all the unbundledcompanies (of erstwhile GEB) at the time of hearing.11.1 Learned Advocate Shri Rakesh Gupta reiterated the facts mentioned in thepetition. He specifically invited our attention to the letter dt.2.7.1998 of Energy &Petrochemicals Deptt., Gandhinagar, wherein the permission for wheeling wasallowed subject to the following terms and conditions:1) “GEB should prepare the bill as per the existing contract demand of 25000KVA. However, industry would pay as per the reduced contract demand of6250 KVA.”The above temporary stop gap ad-hoc arrangement shall be effective from22.6.1998. It is further clarified that difference amount between bill as perexisting contract demand and that as per the reduced contract demand should betreated as deferred amount without any penal interest. The difference in amountfor System Losses and wheeling charges, if any, ultimately to be decided as perthe Captive Power Policy to be issued by the Government will also be payablePage 8 of 17