JUDGMENT :

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the vires of Regulation 4.4.6 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Grid Code, 2011 (for short, ‘State Grid Code’) issued by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, ‘State Regulatory Commission’) under Section 86(1)(h) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for short, the Electricity Act, on the ground that the same is contrary to the Electricity Act. Prayer is also made to set aside the order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the State Regulatory Commission in Suo-Motu Petition No. 56/2015 (M) levying “Parallel Operational Charges” on Captive Power Plants (CPPs) and for a direction that the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) i.e. respondent No.3, does not have authority and power to levy and collect Parallel Operational Charges from CPPs under Regulation of 4.4.6 of the State Grid Code.

2. The petitioner is a company which manufactures steel and iron in the State of Chhattisgarh. For the purpose of meeting the requirements of electricity, it had established a 85 MW CPP. The CPP of the petitioner is connected to the State Transmission Utility (STU), which is the respondent No. 4.

3. Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned regulation is inconsistent with the Grid Code specified by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, for short, ‘Central Regulatory Commission’, under Section 79(1)(h) of the Electricity Act as the concept of “Parallel Operation Charges” as finding place in Regulation 4.4.6 is not mentioned in the Indian Electricity Grid Code, 2010, for short, ‘Central Grid Code’, as notified by the Central Regulatory Commission.

4. It is further submitted that the exercise of power under Section 181(zp) of the Electricity Act is also a violation of express provision of Section 62(5) read with Section 181(zf) of the Electricity Act as by exercising the general power under Section 181(zp), the State Commission cannot over-ride the express provision of Section 62(5) and Section 181(zf) of the Electricity Act. It is further submitted that levy of Parallel Operation Charges only on CPP is discriminatory and unjust as Independent Power Plants (IPPs) had not been subjected to levy of Parallel Operation Charges.

5. Abiding by the stand taken in the reply filed, Mr. Anand K. Ganeshan along with Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. M/s. Rain Calcining Ltd. and other, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1537. It is submitted that even prior to the impugned regulation, the State Regulatory Commission had passed orders determining Parallel Operation Charges, which had also been subjected to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, established under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, wherein the orders had been upheld and sustained. It is submitted that the State Regulatory Commission had relied on a detailed report on evaluation of Parallel Operation Charges by financial and technical consultant. It is submitted that absence of a provision in the Central Grid Code does not mean that existence of a provision in the State Grid Code would amount to any inconsistency. Section 79 of the Central Commission does not relate to consumption of electricity and all that is required under Section 86(1)(h) is that the State Grid Code should be consistent with the Central Grid Code. Section 62(5) of the Electricity Act has no relation whatsoever with the exercise of power under Section 181(zp) and that Section 62(5) read with Section 181(zf) only provide that a licensee or generating company will be required to comply with the procedure specified for calculating the revenue from tariff and charges which the licensee or generating company is permitted to recover. He has submitted that the State Regulatory Commission had publ