LAWS(APTE)-2013-1-5

M/S DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, NEW DELHI, UTTAR PRADESH STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, LUCKNOW AND UTTAR PRADESH NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, LUCKNOW

Decided On January 08, 2013
M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited Appellant
V/S
National Load Despatch Centre, New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh State Load Despatch Centre, Lucknow And Uttar Pradesh New And Renewable Energy Development Agency, Lucknow Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd has filed the review petition seeking the review of the order dated 18.10.2010 which was passed in Petition No. 36/MP/2012 and other related petitions. The petitioner has made the following prayers:

(2.) THE petitioner has submitted that the Commission in the impugned order has repeatedly stated that the eligibility criteria for RE captive generators and other RE generators are different, however, the said reasoning has been negated in para 25 of he order by applying the disqualifications specified in the second proviso meant for the Captive Generation Plant (CGP) in respect of other RE generators. The petitioner has submitted that the disqualifications and restrictions specified in the first proviso to Regulation 5 (1) is applicable to all RE generators regardless to their CGP status. However, the disqualifications specified in the subsequent provisos are applicable to CGPs only and should not be made applicable to other RE generators.

(3.) THE petitioner has submitted that by requiring sugar cogeneration plants in the State of Uttar Pradesh to forego electricity duty exemption, the Commission has imposed a condition which is incapable/impossible to implement as the co -generation plants are not availing such facility. Moreover, the waiver of electricity duty by its very nature ought to be intentional and voluntary and therefore, the benefit accruing by virtue of law to all entities consuming power from their own source of generation cannot operate as a disqualification within the meaning and purport of the second proviso to Regulation 5(1). The petitioner has submitted that the impugned order presumes the petitioner's ability to forego the electricity duty exemption when no such ability exists and therefore, the impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.