IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Kerala State Electricity Board Limited – Appellant
Versus
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
W.P(C).No.22566 OF 2020(U)
Decided on : 02-12-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges & Losses) Regulations, 2020 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 3, 52 , 61 r/w 62 - Utilization of resources - National Electricity Policy as well as Tariff Policy for development of power system - Petitioner argues that impugned Regulations, by changing basis for the sharing of inter-state transmission charges and losses from one that obtained under earlier Regulations of 2010, has strayed away from the objectives stipulated under National Tariff Policy as also provisions of Electricity Act. It is also their case that impugned Regulations discriminate against petitioner and similarly situated Distribution Licensees in Southern Region of our country, as they are forced to shoulder a heavy financial burden on account of changed sharing criteria adopted in said Regulations - Mere fact that there is a different basis for determination of transmission charges, through GNA mechanism that is under contemplation of Central Government, cannot be a reason to read malafides, either factual or legal, into the framing of the impugned regulations – Court do not find impugned regulations to suffer from any constitutional or statutory infirmity that would warrant an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. (Para 7)
Finding of the court: Court do not find merit in the argument advanced by the petitioner that suggests that there has been a covert shifting of the costs incurred by the CERC on account of the relinquishment of Long Term Access commitments by private power generators, for whom nine high capacity corridors had been created. While the petitioner would maintain that its shared transmission charges will not escalate if the CERC recoups the costs incurred by it from the defaulting private power generators, court fail to see the causal connection between the failure to recoup costs from the private generators and the anticipated increase in shared costs for the petitioner - This court would not be justified in interfering with the legislative exercise undertaken by a statutory body.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Every once in a while, an unsuspecting judge opens a case file, only to find himself dragged into an unfathomable ocean of technical gobbledygook. This is one such case, and an attempt at its resolution has had me delve into the privileged domain of electrical engineers, mercifully, with able assistance from the learned Senior Counsel, and their enthusiastic and erudite instructing counsel, appearing on either side.
The brief facts:
The State owned Distribution Licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2003 Act’) is the petitioner in this writ petition that questions the legality of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges & Losses) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2020 Regulations’). The petitioner argues that the impugned Regulations, by changing the basis for the sharing of inter-state transmission charges and losses from the one that obtained under the earlier Regulations of 2010, has strayed away from the objectives stipulated under the National Tariff Policy as also the provisions of the Electricity Act. It is also their case that the impugned Regulations discriminate against the petitioner and similarly situated Distribution Licensees in the Southern Region of our country, as they are forced to shoulder a heavy financial burden on account of the changed sharing criteria adopted in the said Regulations.
2. The respondent Regulatory Commission refutes the arguments of the petitioner by referring to the scheme of the 2003 Act that portrays it as a complete code with respect to all matters concerning electricity, including the development of a national grid, ensuring optimal of the transmission network to promote efficient utilization of generation and transmission assets in the country; attracting the required investments in the transmission sector, providing adequate returns and transmission tariff framework with the objective of promoting effective utilization of all assets across the country and accelerated development of new transmission capacities that are required keeping the projected demand and generation in the years to come. Reference is made to the provisions of the 2003 Act to demonstrate that the Commission has been vested with the powers to specify the terms and conditions for determination of tariff as also to make regulations, inter alia, for the levy and collection of fees and charges from generating companies or transmission utilities or licencees. In the discharge of its functions, the Commission is stated to be guided by the National Electricity Policy and the Tariff Policy that requires it, inter alia, to formulate a national transmission tariff framework that would be sensitive to distance, direction and related to quantum of flow.
3. Referring to the challenge in the writ petition to the ‘2020 Regulations’, it is stated that the said sharing regulations are an improvement upon the earlier regulations of 2010, and that the changes were necessitated on account of the recommendations made by the Bakshi Committee Task Force, as modified by the Jha Committee that was constituted to implement the recommendations of the former. Inasmuch as the changes were made after consulting the various stakeholders and considering their objections to the draft proposals, it is argued that the petitioner cannot challenge the 2020 Regulations because it gives effect to a policy decision, the merit or wisdom of which will not ordinarily be reviewed by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Statutory Framework:
Before proceeding to consider the issues and the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice the statutory framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly with reference to the role envisaged for the CERC thereunder. The scope and analysis of the 2003 Act has been succinctly laid out in paragraphs 17 to 28 of the judgment of the Supre
Bhavesh D. Parish & Ors v. Union of India & Anr – [(2000) 5 SCC 471]
PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulation Commission – [(2010) 4 SCC 603]
Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Inraprastha Gas Limited & Ors. – [(2015) 9 SCC 209]
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. - [(2019) 3 SCC 352]
State of Karnataka & Anr v. H. Ganesh Kamath & Ors. - [(1983) 2 SCC 402]
U.P.Power Corporation Ltd v. NTPC Ltd & Ors. - [(2011) 12 SCC 400]
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.