Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Petition No. 105/2009 (Suo-motu)

Attorney(S)

1. Shri. D.D Chopra, Advocate, UPPCL
2. Shri. V.P Trivedi, UPPCL
3. Shri. R.K Johar, UPPCL
4. Shri. B.P Pant, UPPCL
5. Shri. S.P Gupta, UPPCL
6. Shri. V.K Agrawal, NRLDC
7. Shri S.R Narasimhan, NRLDC
8. Ms. Jyoti Prasad, NRLDC
9. Shri. Vivek Pandey, NRLDC
10. Shir. A.K Aggarwal, NRPC
11. Shri. A.K Rajput, NRPC

Judges

Pramod Deo
Chairperson
R. Krishnamoorthy, Member
S. Jayaraman, Member
V.S Verma, Member

Acts

SECTION 142 ELECTRICITY ACT 2003

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Commission's Opinion on Over-drawal (13.4.2009–10.5.2009)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12.6.2009 the Commission issued a show cause notice directing the respondent to explain why it should not be held guilty of contravening paragraphs 5.4.2 and 6.4.7 of the Indian Electricity Grid Code (Grid Code) and why penalties under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 should not be imposed for repeated over-drawals of electricity during the period 13.4.2009 to 10.5.2009. The notice identified 489 time-blocks of over-drawal across several magnitude bands (ranging from >50 MW to >1000 MW), and included an annexure listing the specific 257 time-blocks in which over-drawal at low frequency continued from a preceding block.

The respondent filed a reply under affidavit dated 13.7.2009. The Commission heard submissions from the respondent and a representative of the Northern Regional Load Despatch Centre (NRLDC), considered documentary material and data presented at the hearing (but declined to take notice of data outside the period specified in the show cause notice), and thereafter issued the present order imposing penalty.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondent contravened and failed to comply with the provisions of the Grid Code (specifically paragraphs 5.4.2 and 6.4.7) by over-drawing from the grid during the period 13.4.2009 to 10.5.2009, particularly during low frequency conditions (frequency below 49.2 Hz).
Whether the respondent's actions taken in response to 'B' and 'C' messages from NRLDC (opening lines, instructing generators to increase generation, etc.) were sufficient to satisfy the Grid Code's requirement of carrying out "requisite" manual load shedding when frequency fell below 49.2 Hz.
Whether penalty under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 should be imposed, and if so, the quantum of penalty appropriate in view of the repeated nature of violations.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

The State's demand for electricity far exceeded availability from its own generation and central sector allocations; despite repeated requests, central allocation was not increased.
Several capacity additions and procurement measures were underway or planned (private sector plants totalling 2,130 MW under implementation with first unit of 300 MW expected March 2010; power purchase agreements with co-generating plants for 1,022 MW of which 911 MW already commissioned; two state power-station expansions of 2×250 MW likely by 2010) — tendering to longer-term remedies for shortages.
There was a sudden increase in demand due to extreme hot weather: average demand in April 2009 exceeded April 2008 by 13.7 MU; May 2009 increased by 7.3 MU compared to May 2008.
Lower availability from power traders than contracted: in April 2009 only 82.7 MU was scheduled against an agreement for 318 MU; in May 2009 only 93.8 MU was scheduled against 159.3 MU agreed.
Non-establishment of a statutory State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) — the respondent (a State Government corporation) was performing SLDC functions but lacked statutory autonomy and, it contended, could not ignore instructions from the political executive.
The respondent provided details of actions taken in response to every 'B' and 'C' message from NRLDC and placed newspaper reports on record indicating mob violence during shutdowns as a factor affecting operations.

NRLDC's Submissions

Over-drawal by the respondent was a perennial problem; proceedings and penalties had been imposed on previous occasions and those penalties had not deterred repeated over-drawal.
Out of 488 time-blocks when frequency was below 49.2 Hz during the relevant period, the respondent over-drew in 453 time-blocks.
Instantaneous over-drawals often exceeded 1,000 MW, with a maximum recorded over-drawal of 1,523 MW during the period; the average over-drawal at frequency below 49.2 Hz during April 2009 was 463 MW.
Such heavy and indiscriminate over-drawals undermine grid discipline, encourage indiscipline by other constituents, and even resulted in threatening calls to NRLDC staff when enforcement was attempted.
NRLDC exhibited additional over-drawal data for May and June 2009, but the Commission did not take notice of data outside the show cause period.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis focused on whether the respondent complied with the Grid Code obligation to carry out "requisite" manual load shedding when frequency fell below 49.2 Hz. Key elements of the reasoning are:

Textual interpretation of the Grid Code: The Commission emphasized the significance of the word "requisite" in the provisions (paras 5.4.2 and the demarcation clause). It concluded that "requisite" load shedding means shedding at a quantum sufficient either to eliminate the over-drawal or to cause the frequency to rise above 49.2 Hz.
Compliance criterion established: An overdrawing utility complies with the Grid Code only if, after receipt of the message, load shedding results in either (a) complete elimination of over-drawal or (b) frequency rising above 49.2 Hz. Using this criterion, the Commission examined the time-block data supplied.
Application to the facts: Of the 489 time-blocks listed as over-drawals in the notice, 257 were time-blocks during which over-drawal continued from the previous time-block. The Commission held that the respondent's reported actions (opening lines, occasional instructions to increase generation, or other steps recorded in its responses) were inadequate in respect of these 257 time-blocks and therefore did not satisfy the "requisite" load shedding requirement.
Rejection of certain justifications: The Commission found that systemic factors (deficiency of power, inability to procure adequate power, sudden demand spikes, lower trader deliveries) and institutional issues (non-establishment of an SLDC) did not justify over-drawal during low frequency conditions. While recognizing non-establishment of an SLDC as a concern, the Commission held that performing SLDC functions as an entity should enable better control, not justify non-compliance; moreover, the respondent produced no evidence that over-drawals were directed by the political executive.
Consideration of prior conduct: The NRLDC representative's evidence of repeated prior violations and penalties informed the Commission's view that the present instances were repeats of earlier contraventions.
Limitation of evidential scope: The Commission expressly declined to consider over-drawal data for May–June 2009 that was exhibited at the hearing because the proceedings were limited to 13.4.2009–10.5.2009 as per the show cause notice.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Commission concluded that the respondent was guilty of contravention of and non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Grid Code (paras 5.4.2 and the demarcation clause) during the period 13.4.2009 to 10.5.2009 and directed imposition of penalty.

Penalty imposed: The Commission imposed the maximum penalty available under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) for each of the 257 time-blocks during which over-drawal continued from the previous time-block — totalling Rs. Two crore and fifty seven lakh. The penalty was ordered to be deposited by 31.8.2009. The order stated that necessary details were contained in Annexure 'A' to the order.

Implications: The direct effect is the imposition of the stated monetary penalty on the respondent for the identified 257 time-block contraventions. The opinion does not discuss or proclaim any new broader legal precedent; it applies the Grid Code's textual requirement of "requisite" load shedding to the facts and exercises the Commission's penalty power under Section 142 in view of repeated violations.

Annexure and Data Considerations

The opinion contains an Annexure listing the specific 257 time-blocks (date, block number and MW of over-drawal) during which over-drawal at low frequency continued from the previous block. The Commission relied on these specific entries to identify the instances warranting penalty. The Commission limited its consideration to the period specified in the show cause notice and excluded additional data for later months that was produced at the hearing.

This summary is prepared exclusively from the text of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that document.

Show full summary ...

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., In Re

The Commission, vide its order dated 12.6.2009 directed the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be held guilty of contravention of and non-compliance of the provisions contained in paragraphs 5.4.2 and 6.4.7 of the Indian Electricity Grid Code (Grid Code) despite repeated instructions and messages from Northern Regional Load Despatch Centre and as to why penalty under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act), be not imposed on it for over-drawl of electricity for each occasion during 13.4.2009 to 10.5.2009 The pattern of over-drawal by the respondent during the period in question had been as under:

S. No Volume of Over-drawal (MW) Number of time-blocks 1 More than 50 MW and less than or equal to 100 MW 16 2 More than 100 MW and less than or equal to 200 MW 52 3 More than 200 MW and less than or equal to 500 MW 200 4 More than 500 MW and less than or equal to 1000 MW 195 5 More than 1000 MW 26 Total 489

2. The respondent filed its reply under affidavit dated 13.7.2009 We have gone through the reply and heard the learned counsel and the representative of the respondent. Gist of the submissions by the respondent is as under:

(a) The demand of electricity in the State far exceeds the availability from its own generation and allocation from the central sector. The respondent has alleged that despite repeated requests, there was no increase in the central sector allocation. The respondent has submitted that in order to overcome the shortage, at least three private sector power plants of capacity of 2130 MW are under implementation and the first unit of 300 MW is scheduled to be commissioned in March 2010. Besides, it has been explained, power purchase agreements have been made with several co-generating plants to generate 1022 MW of which 911 MW is already commissioned and the rest is to be commissioned shortly. The State Government has also said to have undertaken expansion of two power stations by adding 2×250 MW each, which is likely to be completed by 2010.

(b) According to the respondent, demand has increased suddenly due to extreme hot weather conditions. It has been stated that average demand during April 2009 was higher than the demand for April 2008 by 13.7 MU. For the month of May 2009, the average demand had increased by 7.3 MU in 2009 as compared to the corresponding month in 2008.

(c) The other reason given by the respondent in support of over-drawal is the lower availability from power traders. The respondent is stated to have entered into agreements with a number of traders and State utilities. However, against the agreement for purchase of 318 MU of electricity, only 82.7 MU was scheduled in April 2009. In May 2009, against the agreement for 159.3 MU, only 93.8 MU was scheduled.

(d) The respondent has explained that non-establishment of the State Load Despatch Centre in the State is also a contributory factor. The respondent has submitted that although it has been performaing the functions of the State Load Despatch Centre, it has not been able to ensure the integrated operation of power system in the State. Learned counsel for the respondent amplified during the hearing that in the absence of the statutory autonomy, the officials of the respondent, which is a corporation under the State Government could not ignore the instructions from the Government.

3. The respondent has also submitted the details of the action taken by it on receipt of every ‘B’ and ‘C’ message from NRLDC. Besides, the respondent has also placed on record a few newspaper reports indicating mob violence during shut downs.

4. Representative of NRLDC who was present during the hearing in pursuance of the Commission's direction, submitted that over-drawal by the respondent was a perennial feature. He pointed out that proceedings were taken against the respondent in the past for violations of the Grid Code and these proceedings culminated into imposition of penalty on four occasions in the past. This, however, it was stated, had not deterred the respondent from over-drawing. According to him, out of 488 time-blocks when the frequency was below 49.2 Hz during the period in question, the respondent had over drawn during 453 time-blocks. He pointed out that instantaneous over-drawals by the respondent were more than 1000 MW on a number of occasions with the maximum over-drawal reaching the extreme limit of 1523 MW. Besides, the average over-drawal by the respondent, at frequency below 49.2 Hz. during April 2009 was 463 MW.

5. The representative of NRLDC further submitted that such indiscriminate and heavy over-drawals by the respondent encourage indiscipline by other State constituents who question the authority of the Regional Load Despatch Centre when asked to curtail over-drawal amounting to 100 MW while the respondent over-drew to the tune of 1000 MW. He also mentioned that threatening calls were being received in the control room of NRLDC, purportedly questioning the efforts to enforce grid discipline on the respondent.

6. The representative of NRLDC exhibited data relating to over-drawals by the respondent during May and June 2009 also. However, as the present proceedings are in respect of over-drawals during 13.4.2009 to 10.5.2009 only, we do not take notice of the data exhibited at the hearing.

7. From the submissions made by the respondent, it emerges that over-drawal during low frequency conditions, that is, at frequency below 49.2 Hz is not denied. The respondent has only endeavoured to justify its over-drawals in view of its inability to meet the demand in the State either by increasing generation or procuring adequate additional power from other sources. Deficiency of power and the respondent's inability to meet demand, we are convinced, do not justify over-drawal especially at low frequency conditions and thereby jeopardizing the security of the grid and the consequent damage to all the Thermal Generating machines in the same grid, the stability of Power Systems and those to the user appliances. This type of operations would also reduce the life of generating machines.

8. The respondent has also submitted some details of action taken by it in response to ‘B’ and ‘C’ messages received from NRLDC. At the outset, we take note of the fact that the respondent has indicated its action against all but ten messages received from NRLDC. It is seen that on most of the occasions, the respondent is reported to have opened certain lines and on a few instances, it had instructed generating stations to increase generation. Under the above circumstances, the short question for our determination is whether these actions absolve the respondent of the charges of over-drawal in contravention of the provisions of the Grid Code as narrated in the show cause notice dated 12.6.2009

9. The charge against the respondent is of non-compliance of the provisions of the Grid Code. Relevant paras of the Grid Code are extracted hereunder for ease of reference:

“5.4.2 Manual Demand Disconnection

(a) As mentioned elsewhere, the constituents shall endeavour to restrict their net drawal from the grid to within their respective drawl schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.5 Hz. When the frequency falls below 49.2 Hz, requisite load shedding (manual) shall be carried out in the concerned State to curtail the over-drawal.”

6.4 Demarcation of responsibilities

4. Provided that the States, through their SLDCs, shall always endeavour to restrict their net drawal from the grid to within their respective drawal schedules, whenever the system frequency is below 49.5 Hz. When the frequency falls below 49.2 Hz, requisite load shedding shall be carried out in the concerned State(s) to curtail the over-drawal.”

(Emphasis supplied)

10. The word “requisite” is significant in the above extracted statutory provisions. It implies that the quantum of load shedding must be up to the level whereby the frequency will rise to a level above 49.2 Hz. An overdrawing utility can be considered to have complied with the provisions of the Grid Code only if the load shedding results in either the over-drawal being completely eliminated or it leads to the frequency rising above 49.2 Hz. Based on this criteria, the respondent can be exonerated of the charge of non-compliance with the provisions of the Grid Code only if there was no over-drawal after receipt of the message till frequency reaches the threshold limit of 49.5 Hz. It is seen that out of the 489 time-blocks during which there was over-drawal by the respondent during the relevant period, there are 257 time blocks during which over-drawal continued from the previous time-block. We are of the opinion that action taken by the respondent cannot be considered to be adequate in respect of these 257 time-blocks.

11. Non-establishment of the State Load Despatch Centre by the State Government, though a matter of serious concern, cannot be a justification for indiscriminate over-drawal by the respondent. As informed by the respondent, the load dispatch functions are presently performed by the respondent itself. In this manner, as an entity performing the load dispatch functions, the respondent should be in a better control of the situation. The respondent has stated that as a State Government company performing the load dispatch functions, it could not have ignored the directions of the political executive. This, even if true, cannot be taken as an extenuating circumstance to justify over-drawal. We may, however, add that apart from making a bald statement, there is no supporting evidence on record that over-drawals were under the directions of senior Government functionaries or the political executive. In case in the absence of the established State Load Despatch Centre, the respondent is unable to function in accordance with law, it should taken up the matter with the State Government to establish the State Load Despatch Centre.

12. Based on the above, we conclude that the respondent is guilty of contravention of and non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the Grid Code, extracted above.

13. As regards the quantum of penalty, we observe that the respondent is guilty of repeated violation of the provisions of the Grid Code. In the past, on certain occasions, as pointed out by the representative of NRLDC, the respondent was found guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Grid Code. The instances brought out in the show cause notice dated 12.6.2009 are only repeat of previous violations. We are, therefore, of the view that the maximum penalty under Section 142 of the Act deserves to be levied for each contravention.

14. Accordingly, we direct that penalty of Rs. Two crore and fifty seven lakh at the rate of Rs. one lakh for each of the time-blocks (total number 257) during which the over-drawal has continued from the previous time-block, out of the over-drawals listed in Annexure I to the show cause notice dated 12.6.2009 be imposed on the respondent. The necessary details in this regard are contained in Annexure ‘A’ to this order. The penalty shall be deposited latest by 31.8.2009

Annexure 1

Time-blocks during which over-drawal at low frequency continued from the previous block

S. No. Date Block MW 1 13-Apr-2009 3 171 2 13-Apr-2009 7 395 3 13-Apr-2009 12 633 4 13-Apr-2009 13 619 5 13-Apr-2009 14 609 6 13-Apr-2009 46 268 7 13-Apr-2009 47 126 8 13-Apr-2009 48 169 9 13-Apr-2009 58 239 10 13-Apr-2009 59 347 11 13-Apr-2009 60 316 12 13-Apr-2009 64 331 13 13-Apr-2009 67 465 14 13-Apr-2009 68 567 15 13-Apr-2009 86 362 16 14-Apr-2009 9 874 17 14-Apr-2009 20 551 18 14-Apr-2009 42 704 19 14-Apr-2009 43 587 20 14-Apr-2009 44 336 21 14-Apr-2009 45 373 22 14-Apr-2009 46 166 23 14-Apr-2009 52 512 24 14-Apr-2009 58 290 25 14-Apr-2009 59 455 26 14-Apr-2009 62 401 27 14-Apr-2009 63 525 28 14-Apr-2009 64 588 29 14-Apr-2009 67 203 30 14-Apr-2009 83 411 31 14-Apr-2009 86 400 32 14-Apr-2009 92 250 33 14-Apr-2009 93 175 34 14-Apr-2009 94 169 35 14-Apr-2009 95 153 36 15-Apr-2009 2 198 37 15-Apr-2009 3 326 38 15-Apr-2009 4 475 39 15-Apr-2009 5 620 40 15-Apr-2009 6 559 41 15-Apr-2009 7 575 42 15-Apr-2009 8 522 43 15-Apr-2009 12 355 44 15-Apr-2009 13 762 45 15-Apr-2009 14 740 46 15-Apr-2009 15 874 47 15-Apr-2009 16 890 48 15-Apr-2009 17 934 49 15-Apr-2009 18 871 50 15-Apr-2009 19 714 51 15-Apr-2009 20 724 52 15-Apr-2009 58 221 53 15-Apr-2009 64 396 54 16-Apr-2009 17 930 55 16-Apr-2009 23 75 56 16-Apr-2009 24 89 57 16-Apr-2009 42 606 58 16-Apr-2009 55 434 59 16-Apr-2009 60 815 60 16-Apr-2009 63 394 61 16-Apr-2009 91 303 62 16-Apr-2009 94 120 63 17-Apr-2009 1 307 64 17-Apr-2009 6 670 65 17-Apr-2009 7 796 66 17-Apr-2009 8 628 67 17-Apr-2009 11 888 68 17-Apr-2009 12 1073 69 17-Apr-2009 15 1149 70 17-Apr-2009 16 1072 71 17-Apr-2009 17 1021 72 17-Apr-2009 18 910 73 17-Apr-2009 19 861 74 17-Apr-2009 20 727 75 17-Apr-2009 23 166 76 18-Apr-2009 91 157 77 19-Apr-2009 1 140 78 19-Apr-2009 2 360 79 19-Apr-2009 3 392 80 19-Apr-2009 4 441 11 81 19-Apr-2009 5 82 19-Apr-2009 14 746 83 19-Apr-2009 17 916 84 20-Apr-2009 94 796 85 20-Apr-2009 95 721 86 21-Apr-2009 24 375 87 21-Apr-2009 63 555 88 21-Apr-2009 67 166 89 22-Apr-2009 20 1098 90 22-Apr-2009 24 806 91 22-Apr-2009 42 593 92 22-Apr-2009 43 532 93 22-Apr-2009 95 693 94 23-Apr-2009 8 635 95 23-Apr-2009 9 582 96 23-Apr-2009 13 481 97 23-Apr-2009 14 594 98 23-Apr-2009 23 204 99 24-Apr-2009 2 542 100 24-Apr-2009 3 477 101 24-Apr-2009 10 535 102 24-Apr-2009 11 723 103 24-Apr-2009 12 745 104 24-Apr-2009 19 395 105 24-Apr-2009 23 226 106 24-Apr-2009 24 78 107 24-Apr-2009 46 259 108 24-Apr-2009 47 76 109 24-Apr-2009 90 347 110 24-Apr-2009 91 369 111 24-Apr-2009 92 380 112 24-Apr-2009 93 476 113 24-Apr-2009 94 577 114 24-Apr-2009 95 556 115 24-Apr-2009 96 550 116 25-Apr-2009 1 408 117 25-Apr-2009 4 389 118 26-Apr-2009 23 238 119 25-Apr-2009 46 339 120 25-Apr-2009 78 124 121 25-Apr-2009 90 265 122 25-Apr-2009 91 112 123 25-Apr-2009 92 195 124 25-Apr-2009 93 407 125 25-Apr-2009 94 633 126 25-Apr-2009 95 526 127 25-Apr-2009 96 544 128 26-Apr-2009 1 515 129 26-Apr-2009 2 465 130 26-Apr-2009 3 354 131 26-Apr-2009 4 395 132 26-Apr-2009 5 474 133 26-Apr-2009 6 487 134 26-Apr-2009 7 393 135 26-Apr-2009 18 672 136 26-Apr-2009 19 620 137 26-Apr-2009 20 593 138 26-Apr-2009 21 721 139 26-Apr-2009 22 645 140 26-Apr-2009 23 689 141 26-Apr-2009 24 812 142 26-Apr-2009 94 608 143 26-Apr-2009 95 739 144 26-Apr-2009 96 757 145 27-Apr-2009 1 680 146 27-Apr-2009 2 678 147 27-Apr-2009 3 673 148 27-Apr-2009 39 117 149 27-Apr-2009 42 360 150 27-Apr-2009 43 151 151 27-Apr-2009 46 535 152 27-Apr-2009 47 426 153 27-Apr-2009 55 364 154 27-Apr-2009 56 319 155 27-Apr-2009 91 502 156 27-Apr-2009 94 858 157 27-Apr-2009 95 767 158 28-Apr-2009 42 709 159 28-Apr-2009 45 283 160 28-Apr-2009 46 424 161 28-Apr-2009 47 576 162 28-Apr-2009 50 506 163 28-Apr-2009 56 459 164 28-Apr-2009 78 194 165 28-Apr-2009 85 827 166 28-Apr-2009 86 730 167 28-Apr-2009 87 577 168 28-Apr-2009 90 605 169 28-Apr-2009 91 691 170 28-Apr-2009 92 728 171 28-Apr-2009 93 637 172 28-Apr-2009 94 425 173 28-Apr-2009 95 416 174 28-Apr-2009 96 528 175 29-Apr-2009 1 627 176 29-Apr-2009 2 717 177 29-Apr-2009 8 449 178 29-Apr-2009 9 598 179 29-Apr-2009 10 674 180 29-Apr-2009 11 702 181 29-Apr-2009 44 269 182 29-Apr-2009 45 243 183 29-Apr-2009 59 324 184 29-Apr-2009 62 163 185 29-Apr-2009 63 172 186 29-Apr-2009 68 361 187 29-Apr-2009 91 261 188 29-Apr-2009 94 657 189 29-Apr-2009 95 809 190 29-Apr-2009 96 834 191 30-Apr-2009 1 618 192 30-Apr-2009 2 350 193 30-Apr-2009 3 319 194 30-Apr-2009 4 421 195 30-Apr-2009 5 240 196 30-Apr-2009 6 255 197 30-Apr-2009 7 113 198 30-Apr-2009 10 413 199 30-Apr-2009 11 543 200 30-Apr-2009 18 1012 201 30-Apr-2009 19 1213 202 30-Apr-2009 20 1352 203 30-Apr-2009 21 1500 204 30-Apr-2009 22 1523 205 30-Apr-2009 23 1513 206 30-Apr-2009 43 366 207 30-Apr-2009 44 289 208 30-Apr-2009 47 339 209 30-Apr-2009 86 819 210 30-Apr-2009 87 881 211 30-Apr-2009 90 604 212 30-Apr-2009 93 742 213 30-Apr-2009 94 1252 214 30-Apr-2009 95 1152 215 30-Apr-2009 96 1098 14 216 01-May-2009 1 217 01-May-2009 2 1192 218 01-May-2009 3 911 219 02-May-2009 61 697 220 02-May-2009 62 685 221 04-May-2009 49 1154 222 04-May-2009 50 1189 223 04-May-2009 55 1351 224 04-May-2009 56 1110 225 04-May-2009 64 864 226 05-May-2009 67 346 227 06-May-2009 59 317 228 06-May-2009 60 99 229 06-May-2009 63 312 230 06-May-2009 94 410 231 07-May-2009 1 412 232 07-May-2009 4 324 233 07-May-2009 19 245 234 07-May-2009 20 264 235 07-May-2009 23 290 236 07-May-2009 87 908 237 07-May-2009 88 655 238 07-May-2009 91 597 239 07-May-2009 92 599 240 07-May-2009 93 603 241 07-May-2009 94 600 242 07-May-2009 95 506 243 08-May-2009 3 465 244 08-May-2009 4 488 245 08-May-2009 46 261 246 08-May-2009 91 568 247 08-May-2009 94 813 248 08-May-2009 95 569 249 08-May-2009 96 647 250 09-May-2009 1 635 251 09-May-2009 2 511 252 09-May-2009 3 452 253 09-May-2009 4 388 254 09-May-2009 5 391 255 09-May-2009 12 695 256 09-May-2009 13 838 257 09-May-2009 14 904

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., In Re

Structured Summary of the Commission's Opinion on Over-drawal (13.4.2009–10.5.2009)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

NRLDC's Submissions

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Annexure and Data Considerations

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., In Re

Comments