Case Note & Summary
The appeal was directed against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which dismissed the appellants' challenge to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission's (CERC) order imposing Availability Based Tariff (ABT) and Unscheduled Interchange (UI) charges on the Simhadri SPTS thermal station. The appellants contended that the CERC lacked jurisdiction to impose these charges, particularly for a generating station supplying power within a single state, and argued that the order was passed without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court examined the legislative framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Sections 79 and 86, which delineate the powers of the CERC and State Regulatory Commissions. It noted that the CERC has the authority to regulate grid discipline and that the introduction of ABT was a necessary measure to address issues of grid frequency and stability. The court found that the appellants had previously accepted the policy decision to implement ABT without objection, and thus could not later claim a violation of natural justice. The court concluded that the CERC's order was valid and dismissed the appeal, affirming the CERC's jurisdiction over the matter and the necessity of ABT for maintaining grid discipline. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of CERC - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction to impose Availability Based Tariff and Unscheduled Interchange charges - Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 79(1)(h), 28 - The court held that the CERC's powers include regulating grid discipline through ABT and UI charges, which are essential for maintaining grid standards and discipline. The appellants' contention regarding lack of jurisdiction was dismissed as unfounded. (Paras 22-22). B) Natural Justice - Allegation of Violation - Allegation that the CERC's order was passed without hearing the appellants is misconceived - Electricity Act, 2003 - The court found that the implementation order was a continuation of a previously established policy and did not violate principles of natural justice, as the appellants had previously accepted the policy without objection. (Paras 20-20). C) Implementation of ABT - Applicability to Single State Beneficiary - The court clarified that ABT applies to generating stations supplying to one state as well - Electricity Act, 2003 - The court ruled that the CERC's implementation of ABT for the Simhadri station was valid and within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that the grid cannot be viewed in isolation. (Paras 24-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission had jurisdiction to impose Availability Based Tariff and Unscheduled Interchange charges on the Simhadri SPTS thermal station.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the CERC's jurisdiction to impose Availability Based Tariff and Unscheduled Interchange charges on the Simhadri SPTS thermal station, and ruled that the implementation did not violate principles of natural justice.
Law Points
- jurisdiction of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
- Availability Based Tariff
- Unscheduled Interchange charges
- Electricity Act
- 2003
- principles of natural justice
