SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.
ALL INDIA POWER ENGINEER FEDERATION & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SASAN POWER LTD. & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5881-5882 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5239-5240 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5246 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5342-5343 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5879 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5355 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5365 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5367 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5956 OF 2016
Decided On : 08-12-2016
Facts of Case:
Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 63 of Electricity Act, 2003 issued guidelines for a tariff based competitive bid process to be initiated by distribution licensees /procurers for procurement of power from generating companies. Electricity to be procured by such procurers is for the purpose of distribution and retail supply to consumers generally. in pursuance of these guidelines, procurers in different States nominated Power Finance Corporation Limited to complete a competitive bid process for development of an ultra mega power project based on linked coalmines using super critical technology. Bone of contention in these matters is whether COD for first Unit to be commissioned, had been achieved on 31.3.2013.
Findings of Court:
Appellate Tribunal is wholly incorrect in accepting case of waiver put forward by learned counsel for respondents and is equally incorrect in absolving independent engineer for test certificate given by him on 30.3.2013. We, therefore, set aside Appellate Tribunal’s judgment, and reinstate judgment dated 8.8.2014 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. (Para 49)
Result – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. These appeals have been argued over a number of days, but ultimately the points raised in them lie within a narrow compass.
2. On 19.1.2005, the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 issued guidelines for a tariff based competitive bid process to be initiated by distribution licensees /procurers for procurement of power from generating companies. The electricity to be procured by such procurers is for the purpose of distribution and retail supply to consumers generally. On 10.2.2006, in pursuance of these guidelines, procurers in different States, namely, appellants 1 to 3 and respondents 5 to 15 (in Civil Appeal Nos.5239-5240 of 2016) nominated Power Finance Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking as the Nodal Agency to complete a competitive bid process for development of an ultra mega power project based on linked coalmines using super critical technology of units of 660 mega watts (MW) each, plus or minus 20%, in Sasan District, Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh. On 10.2.2006, Sasan Power Limited was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle by Power Finance Corporation in order to implement the aforesaid purpose. On 1.8.2007, based on the competitive bidding process held by Power Finance Corporation, Reliance Power Limited, having quoted the lowest amount, was selected as the successful bidder, and a letter of intent was issued to Reliance Power Ltd. The quoted tariff, year by year, for a period of 25 years, which was accepted and incorporated as Schedule 11 in the Power Purchase Agreement dated 7.8.2007 (PPA) had tariffs at an extremely depressed rate for the first two years, after which the tariffs were fixed at a significantly higher rate. On the very day that the PPA was executed between Sasan Power Limited and the procurers for generation and sale of electricity, 100% share holding of the special purpose vehicle was acquired by Reliance Power Limited. The PPA contains detailed clauses with respect to generation of power and the tariffs payable for the period of 25 years. Apart from other provisions, we are really concerned with Article 6 read with Schedule 5 which provides for pre-conditions to be satisfied for declaration of a generating unit as Commercial Operation Date, “COD”, namely readiness to commence commercial operations. This happens only when a performance test, by operating the generating unit at 95% of the contracted capacity as existing on the Effective Date on a continuous running basis for 72 hours, has been certified by an independent engineer, by giving a final test certificate to the aforesaid effect. The PPA also contains various other clauses which will be set out during the course of this judgment.
3. The bone of contention in these matters is whether the COD for Unit No.3, which was the first Unit to be commissioned, had been achieved on 31.3.2013. If it had, then under Schedule 11 to the PPA, the entire first year would get exhausted in one day, i.e., 31st March being the end of the contract year, for which tariff payable would be at the rate of 69 paise per unit. If not, then it is only on and from the commencement of COD that such year would begin, which, according to the appellants before us, would only begin on 16.8.2013 when a final test certificate in accordance with Article 6 of the PPA was given by the independent engineer to the effect that 95% of the contracted capacity had been achieved for a continuous period of 72 hours. We are informed that if the COD is said to be on 31.3.2013, as has been held by the Appellate Tribunal, the consumers would have to pay a sum of over Rs.1000 crores, being the differential tariff that would apply.
4. The date for commissioning the first unit was fixed under the PPA as 7th May, 2013. However, under Schedule 11 thereof, this date was preponed to 27th November,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.