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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1024

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
M/s. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Gayatri Shakti Paper And Board Limited And Another, Etc. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8527-8529 OF 2009 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1-2 Of 2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 1693-1698 Of 2010, Civil Appeal No. 12282 Of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 1142 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 1141 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 4611-4624 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 4532-4556 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 4571 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No. 10378 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 3662 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 4233 Of 2022 And Civil Appeal No. 8738 Of 2022
Decided On : 09-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR Mr. Sanjay Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Singha, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR M/S. D. S. K Legal, AOR Mr. G. Saikumar, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, Adv. Ms. Nikita Choukse, Adv. Mr. Akash Lamba, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. Mr. G.umapathy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mr. Basava Prabhu S.patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Basava Prabhu S.patil, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita Jain, AOR Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Geet Rajan Ahuja, Adv. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Matrugupta Mishra, Adv. Mr. Nipun Dave, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Bhagirath N.patel, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Divya Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Saransh Shaw, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Nakul Dewan , Sr., Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Adv. Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR M/S. D.S. K. Legal, AOR Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya Sharma, Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Gunjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv. Ms. Ishita Jain, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sinah, Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Mrs. Meenakshi Devgan, Adv. Mr. Sachin Mintri, Adv. Mr. T. Sundar Ramanathan, AOR Mr. Vivek Pandey, Adv. Mr. D Balaji, Adv. Mr. Krishan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Divya Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Saransh Shaw, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Nikunj Dayal, AOR Mr Hasan Murtaza, AOR Mr. V.S. Pillai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. R.L.K. Sundram, Adv. Mr. S.S. Stalian, Adv. Mr. V. J. Stlani, Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR

Captive generating plants must ensure 26% ownership and 51% consumption by captive users, interpreted not only to include individuals but also legal entities as associations, ensuring compliance with stipulated eligibility criteria.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 2(8), 2(49), 9, 42 - Interpretation of captive generating plant and eligibility requirements for captive users discussed. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Captive generating plants must be primarily for self-use or the use of an association of persons; transfer of ownership does not void captive status if criteria are met. (Paras 10-17)

(C) Specific eligibility criteria require at least 26% ownership and 51% consumption of generated electricity by captive users. (Paras 21-24)

(D) Proportional consumption requirements clarified, stressing individual consumption must align with ownership. (Paras 41-44)

Facts of the case:
This judgment addressed the interpretation of the Electricity Act provisions and eligibility of certain entities as captive users against conflicting earlier judgments. The court analyzed ownership and consumption requirements under applicable rules and statutes.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the need for captive users to satisfy ownership and consumption requisites continuously throughout the financial year and established a clear framework for understanding the legal status and obligations of captive generating plants and their users.

Issues: The primary issues included qualifications for a captive generating plant, the interpretation of rules regarding captive user status, and the implications of ownership transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the interpretation of 'association of persons' encompasses SPVs, affirming no exemption from proportional consumption requirements exists for SPVs.

Result: The court confirmed the necessity for compliance with sections and rules pertaining to captive generating plants.

Table of Content
1. interpretation of the electricity act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. criteria for establishing cgps. (Para 3 , 7)
3. definition and ownership criteria of cgps (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. rights and obligations under section 9 of the act (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. understanding of captive generating plant's operational rights (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. proportionality requirement for 'association of persons' (Para 21 , 30)
7. significance of ownership and consumption requirements. (Para 22)
8. interpretation of spvs and compliance with association of persons (Para 49 , 50 , 65)
9. spv as an association of persons. (Para 66)

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjiv Khanna, J.)

This judgment interprets relevant provisions of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 20031[For short, “Act”] and Rule 3 of the ELECTRICITY RULES , 20052[For short, “Rules”], for being classified as a Captive Generating Plant3[For short, “CGP”] and a captive user.

2. We will be elucidating the legal position as per the statute, our intent being to first lay down the principles of law and then apply the principles to the facts and circumstances of each case.

3. To decide the legal question, we will refer to two judgments of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity4[For short, “APTEL”]. These are, Kadodara Power Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Another5[2009 SCC OnLine APTEL 119; for short, “Kadodara Power”], dated 22.09.2009, which decision was held to be per incuriam on several findings in Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 6[2021 SCC OnLine APTEL 19; for short, “Tamil Nadu Power”], dated 07.06.2021. A third decision of the APTEL in Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited and Others v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission7[2021 SCC OnLine APTEL 78; for short, “Sai Wardha”], dated 26.11.2021, substantially agrees with the view in Tamil Nadu Power8[Supra note 6]. We shall refer to the reasons given in the decisions and the explanation and grounds for our conclusion and legal finding.

4. We begin by first reproducing the relevant provisions of the Act9[As amended up to 31.08.2023] :

    “2. Definition. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

    xx xx xx

    (8) “Captive generating plant” means a power plant set up by any person to generate electricity primarily for his own use and includes a power plant set up by any cooperative society or association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such cooperative society or association;

    xx xx xx

    (49) “person” shall include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person;

    xx xx xx

    9. Captive generation. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person may construct, maintain or operate a captive generating plant and dedicated transmission lines:

    Provided that the supply of electricity from the captive generating plant through the grid shall be regulated in the same manner as the generating station of a generating company:

    Provided further that no licence shall be required under this Act for supply of electricity generated from a captive generating plan to any licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder and to any consumer subject to the regulations made under sub-section (2) of Section 42.

    (2) Every person, who has constructed a captive generating plant and maintains and operates such plant, shall have the right to open access for the purposes of carrying electricity from his captive generating plant to the destination of his use:

    Provided that such open access shall be subject to availability of adequate transmission facility and such availability of transmission facility shall be determined by the Central Transmission Utility or the State Transmission Utility, as the case may be:

    Provided further that any dispute


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