MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as MSEDCL), a distribution licensee has filed this appeal under section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order dated 30.07.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Central Commission ') in Petition No. 166/MP/2012 titled as Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'RGPPL ') a generating company, whereby the petition filed by the generating company, the respondent No. 2 herein, under section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been allowed by the Central Commission.

(2.) THE appellant is a distribution licensee. The respondent No. 1 is Central Electricity Regulatory Commission which is empowered to discharge the functions under the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent No. 2, RGPPL is a power generating company and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the Secretaries to Electricity Department of Goa, Daman & Due and Dadar and Nagar Haveli.

(3.) THE learned Central Commission, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dealing with the obligation of the appellant to pay the capacity charges and energy charges as per terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 10.04.2007. By the impugned order, the appellant is required to pay the capacity charges as per the provisions of Article 5.2 read with Article 4.3 of the PPA if the appellant does not schedule power based on declaration of availability of the power of Recycled Liquid Natural Gas (R -LNG). The learned Commission has also held that the provisions of Article 5.9 of the PPA, dealing with Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) and Gas Transportation Agreement (GTA) and the requirement of taking consent/approval of the appellant to the contracting terms and price related only to the energy charges specified in Article 5.3 of the PPA and it has no implication to the capacity charges payable as per Article 5.2 read with Article 4.3 of the PPA. The learned Central Commission, vide impugned order, has clearly held that the appellant is liable to pay capacity charges even when the appellant does not give consent to the GSA or GTA. The learned Central Commission has not accepted the contention of the appellant that the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the capacity charges because the appellant has not given consent or approval to the said GSA/GTA. The learned Central Commission has rejected this contention of the appellant that the implication of the impugned order would result in saddling the consumers of Maharashtra with an annual additional liability of Rs. 7772 Crores.