NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD Vs. ORISSA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two appeals under Section 39 of the Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 filed by the appellant M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd. common question of law and facts being involved for determination, with the consent and on agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MISC . Appeal No. 651 of 1999 is directed against the order of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called 'Regulatory Commission') rejecting the appellant's application for review/clarification of its order dated 21.11.1998, passed by order dated 13.5.1999 in Case No. 4 of 1999, whereas the order dated 30.12.1999 passed by the Regulatory Commission in Case No. 12 of 1999, rejecting the objection of the appellant, regarding legality of levying wheeling charges and transmission loss in view of the purported agreement dated 15.1.1991 and 1.6.1994 with the erstwhile O.S.E.B. is under challenge in Misc.Appeal No. 138 of 2000.

(3.) IN the review application, the appellant, apart from contending that its objection was not considered by the Regulatory Commission, it reiterated its stand that in view of the bilateral arrangement between the appellant NALCO and the O.S.E.B., subsequently the functions of which got transferred to GRIDCO, the appellant NALCO was to be excluded from the review of the tariff set out by the Commission, since the arrangement made in the year 1991 and subsequently amended at the High Level Meeting held in June, 1994, continued to subsist, as would be evident from the notification issued by the GRIDCO, in various newspapers indicating therein that the tariff effective from11.12.1998 would not be applicable to the parties with whom bilateral agreement. exists, which obviously included appellant, the NALCO. It was the further stand that the GRIDCO having admitted the bilateral arrangement in terms of the memorandum dated 1.6.1994. the Regulatory Commission ought to have considered the same in its proper perspective in accordance with law and could not have said that it is beyond the purview of any objection.