SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 646

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Konark Power Projects Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
C.A. No. 5612 of 2012
Decided On : 28-04-2015

Headnote:

Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 - Section 27(2) - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 61, 62and 86(1)(b) and 86(1)(e) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 5 - Purchase of electricity from renewable sources - Mutual negotiations - Supply of power – Subsequently by a Supplemental Agreement entered into between Appellant and Respondent No. 1 Paragraphs of Agreement came to be modified - Under Paragraph Supplemental Agreement rate of tariff was altered providing for a slightly higher tariff for purchase of power from Respondent No. 1 - Under Regulation it was stipulated that Commission should determine tariff for purchase of electricity from renewable sources by a buyer - Proviso provided that PPAs approved by Commission including PPAs deemed to have been approved Under Section 27(2) of Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 prior to notification of those Regulations shall continue to apply for such period as mentioned in those PPAs - Held, While reading Regulation 5.1 of 2004 Regulations along with Regulation 9 of 2011 Regulations and its provisos what emerges is whatever terms agreed between parties should continue to remain in force without any alteration at least for a period of ten years as provided Under Paragraph 5.1 of original Agreement at rate at which it was agreed and as modified insofar as it related to rate alone under amended Paragraph of Supplemental Agreement - Only other scope for Respondent No. 1 to work out any higher tariff can be as provided under Paragraph of original Agreement as well as Supplemental Agreement - Beyond that there is no scope for Commission to vary tariff what has been agreed between parties under above referred Agreements having regard to specific provisions contained in Regulation 5.1 of 2004 Regulations and Regulation 9(1) of 2011 Regulations - Contention that Under Regulations 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 of 2004 Regulations as well as Sections 61 and 62 of Electricity Act, power is vested with Commission to vary the tariff is concerned such power specifically provided for in said Regulations will only operate prior to fixing of tariff once concerned Power Purchase Agreements are ultimately concluded and terms are agreed between parties under Power Purchase Agreement in court considered opinion Regulation 5.1 of 2004 Regulations alone would apply in case of parties before us - Consequently there was no scope for Commission to vary tariff agreed between parties under approved Power Purchase Agreement - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. G. Umapathy for Respondent No. 1. Appellant is a State Electricity Board. Respondent No. 1 had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL) for supply of power by an agreement dated 04.04.2002. Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the said Agreement are relevant for our purpose, which are as under:

"5.1 Monthly Energy Charges: Corporation shall for the Delivered Energy pay, for the first 10 years from the date of signing of Agreement to the Company every month during the period commencing from the Commercial Operation Date on the basis of the base price applicable for the year 1994-95 at the rate of Rs. 2.25 (Rupees Two and twenty five paise) per kilowatt hour (the tariff) for energy delivered to the Corporation at the Meeting Point with an escalation to the Corporation at the Metering Point with an escalation at a rate of 5% per annum over the tariff applicable for the previous year as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources of the Gol.

5.2 From the 11th year onwards, from the date of signing of Agreement, Corporation shall pay to the Company for the energy delivered at the Meeting Point at a rate agreed by mutual negotiations. In case the Parties do not arrive at a mutual agreement on the tariff, the Company shall be permitted to sell power to third parties and enter into a Wheeling and Banking Agreement with Corporation to sell power through the rates applicable from time to time in addition to banking charges at the rates applicable from time to time as approved by the Commission based on the month and balance of the energy banked."

2. Subsequently, by a Supplemental Agreement dated 29.10.2005 entered into between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Agreement dated 04.04.2002 came to be modified. Under Paragraph 5.1 of the Supplemental Agreement, the rate of tariff was altered providing for a slightly higher tariff for purchase of power from Respondent No. 1.

3. In the year 2004, the KERC (Power Procurement from Renewable Sources by Distribution Licensee) Regulations, 2004 (for short "the 2004 Regulations") dated 27.09.2004 came to be notified by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Respondent No. 2 herein, in the Karnataka Gazette on 21.10.2004. Under Regulation 5.1, it was stipulated that the Commission should determine the tariff for purchase of electricity from renewable sources by a buyer. The proviso, however, provided that the PPAs approved by the Commission including the PPAs deemed to have been approved Under Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, prior to the notification of those Regulations shall continue to apply for such period as mentioned in those PPAs.

4. Subsequently, in the year 2011, fresh Regulations, viz., KERC (Power Procurement from Renewable Sources by Distribution Licensee and Renewable Energy Certificate Framework) Regulations, 2011 (for short "the 2011 Regulations") came to be issued and notified. Under Regulation 9 of the 2011 Regulations, it was provided that the Commission may determine at any time the tariff for purchase of electricity from renewable sources of energy by Distribution Licensees either suo motu or on an application either by generator or by Distribution Licensee. The proviso to Regulation 9, however, was identical to the proviso to Regulation 5.1 of the 2004 Regulations. It is needless to state that the above Regulations came to be framed by virtue of the power vested in the State Commission Under Section181 read with Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. Pursuant to the original Agreement dated 04.04.2002 and supported by the Supplemental Agreement dated 29.10.2005, the tariff which was originally fixed Under Paragraph 5.1 in the year 2002 and subsequently modified in the Supplemental Agreement was implemented and was holding the field









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top