MEENAKSHI ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD Vs. SOUTHERN REGIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, BANGALORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the first and second respondents to treat the generating stations owned by the petitioner and the fifth respondent as a single entity for the purposes of scheduling, dispatch, metering and energy accounting (including UI), the petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers, namely -

(2.) THE petitioner has further submitted that as per the decision in the 12th meeting of Southern Region constituents regarding LTA and Connectivity applications, held on 8.6.2011, the petitioner was directed to work out the arrangement with the fifth respondent for sharing of the transmission charges and losses for the transmission line and also to sort out the issues pertaining to scheduling, metering, UI etc. in consultation with the first respondent. Based on the decision, the petitioner vide its letter dated 16.6.2011 requested the CTU to suggest suitable arrangement of Special Energy Meters (SEMs) for the two projects in order to facilitate energy accounting of the projects separately on standalone basis. In response, the CTU vide its letter dated 21.6.2011 informed the petitioner that the issue of finalization of meter location has been referred to the SRPC/SRLDC. Simultaneously, the CTU asked the petitioner to forward the agreement between the petitioner and the fifth respondent regarding the modalities for sharing of the transmission charges and losses pertaining to the dedicated transmission system and also the mechanism for apportioning of energy and UI charges from the point of connectivity to ISTS in terms of the request of SRPC Secretariat. The petitioner has submitted that in the 16th meeting of the Commercial Sub -committee of the Southern Regional Power Committee held on 21.6.2011, the proposal of the petitioner for installation of the SEMs was discussed. The CTU informed in the meeting that the petitioner and the fifth respondent had been granted connectivity and long -term open access as two separate and independent entities and accordingly suggested to Respondent No. 1 to treat the two projects as different entities. CTU indicated to SRLDC that it had circulated a schematic drawing of the metering system of the two projects and requested SRLDC to provide the exact details of SEM locations required for energy accounting. Further, CTU in its letter dated 5.7.2011 has informed the petitioner that SRPC has indicated to install SEMs in all locations suggested by the petitioner and as regards the UI accounting methodology, a separate meeting would be held by SRPC. The petitioner has submitted that despite the recommendations of CTU to treat them as two separate and independent projects, SRLDC has proceeded to treat the petitioner and the fifth respondent as a single entity with combined energy accounting.

(3.) THE petitioner has submitted that SRLDC, the second respondent, by its letter dated 24.8.2011 suggested the following locations to SRTS -I of PGCIL for installing the Special Energy Meters: