Maharashtra State El... v. Maharashtra Electric..., Appellate Tribunal For Electricity, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal No. 60 of 2018 and IA Nos. 1148 & 1149 of 2017

Disposition

Advocates

Mr. G. Saikumar
Mr. Anand K. Ganesan
Ms. Rimali Batra
Mr. Abhimanyu Garg
Ms. Swapna Seshadri for R-2

Judges

N.K. Patil, Judicial Member
S.D. Dubey, Technical Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), challenged the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in Case No. 74 of 2016, arising from the dispute between M/s CLP Wind Farms (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. and MSEDCL. The appellant sought to set aside the MERC order and judgment. The appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, and involved related Interlocutory Applications (IA Nos. 1028 & 1029 of 2017 and IA No. 520 of 2018). The appellant raised multiple questions of law regarding the validity, reasoning, and regulatory considerations in the impugned order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the impugned order is bad in law?
Whether the impugned order is a not reasoned order?
Whether MERC failed to consider the cash flow difficulties faced by the appellant and passed the impugned order without assigning reasons?
Whether the impugned order failed to consider regulatory issues raised by the appellant?
Whether, given the appellant's status as a regulated entity facing external circumstances affecting cash flow, the regulatory conditions relating to payments under the EPA should have been duly considered by MERC in the impugned order?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The impugned order is legally flawed and should be set aside.
The order lacks proper reasoning.
MERC did not consider the appellant's cash flow difficulties and passed the order without reasons.
Regulatory issues raised by the appellant were not considered.
The appellant, as a regulated entity unable to raise additional funds and affected by external circumstances (force majeure), found timely payments onerous and impossible; these regulatory conditions should have been considered by MERC.

Respondent's Arguments

The subject matter of the appeal is directly covered by the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 (MSEDCL v. MERC & Anr.).
In view of that judgment and the reasons stated therein, the instant appeal should be disposed of in the interest of justice and equity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Judgment dated 24.04.2018 in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 (MSEDCL v. MERC & Anr.)	Governing legal principles relevant to the subject matter of the instant appeal.	The court relied on this precedent to dispose of the instant appeal and the related interlocutory applications, finding the issues substantially covered by that judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the subject matter of the instant appeal was directly covered by the prior judgment of the Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 involving the same parties and similar issues. Both parties’ counsel agreed that the instant appeal should be disposed of in terms of that judgment. Considering this, the court found no need for further adjudication on the merits of the appeal or interlocutory applications. Therefore, the court disposed of the appeal and the related interlocutory applications relying on the reasoning and directions contained in the earlier judgment.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The appeal (Appeal No. 67 of 2018) filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and the related interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 1028 & 1029 of 2017 and IA No. 520 of 2018) stand disposed of in light of the prior judgment dated 24.04.2018 in Appeal No. 75 of 2017. This decision directly affects the parties by concluding the instant proceedings without further examination of the impugned order. No new precedent was established by this order beyond the reliance on the earlier judgment.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order in Appeal No. 67 of 2018 & IA Nos. 1028 & 1029 of 2017 & IA No. 520 of 2018 COURT-II

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2018 & IA NOS. 1028 & 1029 OF 2017 & IA NO. 520 OF 2018 ON THE FILE

OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY, NEW DELHI

Dated: 7^th May, 2018

Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. S.D. Dubey, Technical Member In the matter of:

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

5^thFloor, Prakashgad, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ….. Appellant

VERSUS

1. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

World Trade Centre No.1, 13^thFloor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba,

Mumbai 400 001

Through its Seceretary

2. M/s CLP Wind Farms (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd.

15^thFloor, Oberoi Commerz, International Business Park, Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 Through its Director ... Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant (s) : Mr. G. Saikumar Ms. Rimali Batra

Mr.Abhimanyu Garg

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Pardasani Ms. Aastha Bajaj for R-2

The Appellant has sought the following reliefs in Appeal No. 67 of

2018:

(i) The Appeal may be allowed and the Impugned Order and judgment dated 16.03.2017 in Case No. 74 of 2016, M/s CLP Wind Farms (Khandke) Pvt Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited passed by the Ld Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission be set-aside; and

(ii) Any other just and equitable relief in favour of the Appellant as deem fit by the Hon'ble Tribunal

The Appellant has presented this Appeal for considering the following Questions of Law:

A. Whether the Impugned Order is bad in law?

B. Whether the Impugned Order is a not reasoned order?

C. Whether MERC has not considered the cash flow difficulties being faced by the Appellant and has passed the Impugned Order without assigning any reasons?

D. Whether the Impugned Order does not consider the regulatory issues raised by the Appellant?

E. Whether the Appellant being a regulated entity and not being able to raise additional funds and with external circumstances affecting the cash flow of MSEDCL, the same being within the domain of viz majeure and as such payments under EPA and timely payments to other generators being onerous and impossible, whether such regulatory conditions should have been duly considered by MERC in the Impugned order?

O R D E R

1. In the instant Appeal, the Appellant is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, Mumbai in Case No. 74 of 2016 in the case of M/s CLP Wind Farms (Khandke) Pvt Ltd. v Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited.

2. We have heard the learned counsel, Mr. G. Saikumar, appearing for the Appellant, the learned counsel, Mr. Dinesh Pardasani, appearing for the second Respondent for quite some time.

3. The first Respondent served unrepresented.

4. The learned counsel for the second Respondent, at the outset, submitted that, the subject matter involved in the instant Appeal is directly covered by the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 passed in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd v Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi. Therefore, he submitted that, in terms of the said judgment and the reasons stated therein, the instant Appeal, being Appeal No. 67 of 2018 filed by the Appellant on the file of the Appellate

Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi may kindly be disposed of in the interest of justice and equity.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. G. Saikumar, appearing for the Appellant, at the outset, fairly submitted that, in the light of the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 passed in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd v Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, the instant Appeal kindly may be disposed of in terms and the reasons stated therein in the interest of justice and equity.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent, as stated above, are placed on record.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent as well as the Appellant, as stated supra, the instant Appeal, being Appeal No. 67 of 2018, filed by the Appellant on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi stands disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 passed in Appeal No. 75 of 2017 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. and the reasons stated therein.

IA NOS. 1028 & 1029 of 2017 &

IA NO. 520 OF 2018

7. In view of the Appeal No. 67 of 2018 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi being disposed of, on account of which, the reliefs sought in IA Nos. 1028 & 1029 of 2017 & IA No. 520 of 2018 do not survive for consideration and, hence, stand disposed of.

8. Order accordingly.

(S.D. Dubey) (Justice N.K. Patil) Technical Member Judicial Member

js/vt

Maharashtra State El... v. Maharashtra Electric...