The court upheld that coal supply from power generation must be allocated equitably among all electricity distribution companies, as mandated by regulatory guidelines, rejecting attempts to prioritize specific agreements.

JUDGMENT

B.R.GAVAI, CJI.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. These appeals take exception to the judgment and final order dated 20th December 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘APTEL’] in Appeal No. 135 of 2018 along with Appeal No. 54 of 2019, whereby the learned APTEL dismissed the said appeals and upheld the order dated 20th March 2018 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CERC’] in Petition No. 105/MP/2017 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Petition No. 105’].

2. We have two appeals before us, both of which challenge the same judgment and final order of the learned APTEL. The first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020 has been filed by Haryana Power Purchase Centre and two others [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘HPCC’] whereas the second appeal being Civil Appeal No. 3429 of 2020 has been filed by one GRID Corporation of Orissa Limited [Hereinafter referred to as ‘GRIDCO’]. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion, the parties will be referred to according to their positions in the first of the two civil appeals.

3. Before we proceed with the facts of the case, it would be apposite to give a brief overview of the parties before us.

3.1 HPCC (Appellant No.1) is the nodal agency for the procurement of power on behalf of the distribution licensees in the State of Haryana, being Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (Appellant No.2) and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (Appellant No.3). Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (Proforma Respondent No.6) is the body corporate that was responsible for the initiation of the competitive bid process on behalf of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 for procurement of power in the State of Haryana. Together, the said parties may be referred to as the “Haryana Utilities”.

3.2 GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited [Hereinafter referred to as ‘GKEL’] (Respondent No.1) is a generating company within the meaning of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2003 Act’]. Notably, GKEL is a special purpose vehicle of GMR Energy Limited [Hereinafter referred to as ‘GEL’] which was the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent No.1.

3.3 PTC India Limited [Hereinafter referred to as ‘PTC’] (Respondent No.2) is a trading licensee within the meaning of the 2003 Act. Respondent No. 2 had an arrangement with GKEL for the procurement of power.

3.4 CERC (Respondent No.3) is the regulatory commission under the 2003 Act.

3.5 GRIDCO (Respondent No.4) is a licensee under the 2003 Act which is responsible for procuring power for supply within the State of Odisha.

3.6 Similarly, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar Utilities’] (Respondent No.5) is a licensee under the 2003 Act which is responsible for procuring power for supply within the State of Bihar.

4. Having given a brief overview of the parties in the civil appeals, we may now proceed to examine the facts which lead to the present appeals. The facts are as follows:-

4.1 With the intention to set up a thermal power plant of about 1,000 MW comprising of two units of about 500 MW each at village Kamalanga, Dhenkanal in the State of Odisha, GEL entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Government of Odisha on 9th June 2006. Per the terms of the MoU, the power project as envisaged was to operate with coal as the primary fuel, for which purpose the State of Odisha was to either allot coal blocks upon receipt of sanction from the Government of India or allot long-term coal linkage of such quality and quantity as required for the project. The MoU further necessitated that a nominated agency authorized by