Summary of Opinion — Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE), New Delhi

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns Review Petition No. 07 of 2018 filed in Appeal No. 268 of 2015 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi. The Review Petitioner sought the following primary reliefs: (a) allowance of Appeal No. 268 of 2015 by setting aside the impugned order (Annexure "A") and directing Respondent No. 2, Torrent Power Ltd., to pay the Appellant the difference between the amount calculated for solar power units at Rs. 12.18 per kWh and the deficient amount already paid, together with interest at the bank rate as provided under section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003; and (b) such other orders as the Tribunal deemed just and proper. The matter was heard by Judicial Member N.K. Patil, with Mr. I.J. Desai appearing for the Review Petitioner.

During submissions, counsel for the Review Petitioner stated that the review petition be dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh review petition on the same cause of action (counsel orally indicated a two-week timeframe). The Tribunal recorded the submissions and dismissed the review petition as withdrawn, while reserving liberty to file a fresh review petition as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petition was thereby disposed of.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the impugned order (Annexure "A") in Appeal No. 268 of 2015 should be set aside and the Appellant awarded the additional amount due for solar power supplies calculated at Rs. 12.18 per kWh.
2. Whether the Respondent (Torrent Power Ltd.) should be directed to pay interest on the deficit amount at the bank rate as contemplated by section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Whether the Review Petition should be allowed, or alternatively whether the Review Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh review petition on the same cause of action.

Arguments of the Parties

Review Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner sought full allowance of Appeal No. 268 of 2015 by setting aside the impugned order (Annexure "A").
• The petitioner sought a direction that Respondent No. 2 (Torrent Power Ltd.) pay the petitioner the difference between the amount computed at Rs. 12.18 per kWh for solar power supplied and the deficient amount already paid, together with interest at the bank rate under section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• During oral submissions before the Tribunal, counsel for the Review Petitioner requested that the Review Petition be dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to file a fresh review petition on the same cause of action (counsel mentioned a two-week period within which the petitioner would file a fresh petition).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning is concise and procedural. The court recorded the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner (Mr. I.J. Desai), specifically the request to treat the Review Petition as withdrawn while reserving liberty to file a fresh review petition on the same cause of action. On the basis of those recorded submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Petition as withdrawn and expressly reserved liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh review petition consistent with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. There is no extended legal analysis or discussion of substantive points of law in the text of the opinion; the order is founded on the petitioner's own request and the Tribunal's acceptance of that request.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Review Petition No. 07 of 2018 in Appeal No. 268 of 2015 is dismissed as withdrawn and the matter stands disposed of.

Implications:

• The immediate effect is procedural: the Review Petition has been disposed of by dismissal as withdrawn.
• The Tribunal has reserved liberty for the Review Petitioner to file a fresh review petition on the same cause of action in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. (The petitioner's counsel had orally indicated a two-week period to file a fresh petition; the Tribunal's order records the reservation of liberty but frames it as being subject to the Act's provisions.)
• The opinion does not set or announce any new legal precedent or substantive ruling on the merits of the claimed entitlement to payment at Rs. 12.18 per kWh or interest under section 62(6); those substantive issues remain unadjudicated in this order.

This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion and does not infer facts or holdings beyond what is explicitly recorded therein.