Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2835
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
B. Stalin
Versus
The Cabinet Secretary, Union of India & Others
W.P (MD) Nos. 3730 of 2012 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 & 2 of 2014 & W.P (MD) No. 4503 of 2012 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012
Decided on: 28-08-2014
For the Petitioner:K.K. Ramesh, Party-in-person, W. Peter Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, G. Thalaimutharasu, R3, S. Suresh, R4, B. Pugalendhi, Special Govt. Pleader, R5, S.M.S. Johnny Basha, R6, S. Srinivasa Ragavan, Advocates.
The responsibility of the State and Central Governments to address power shortage, the need for public amenities, and the discretion of the Governments in power generation and distribution as policy decisions.
Headnote:
Power Shortage - Public Interest Litigation - [Electricity, Power Shortage] - [Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 86, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations] - The court addressed the acute power shortage in the State of Tamil Nadu, considering the gap between demand and supply, corridor congestion, and the responsibility of the State and Central Governments to resolve the issue. The court emphasized the need for public amenities and observed the steps being taken to resolve the power shortage, refraining from issuing specific directions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed Public Interest Litigations seeking to address the acute power shortage in the State of Tamil Nadu, alleging inimical attitude of the Government of India, inadequate tie-ups with long term sources of generation, and corridor congestion affecting power supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the sufferings of the general public due to power shortage and emphasized the responsibility of the State and Central Governments to take effective steps to resolve the issue. It noted the new power projects and schemes being contemplated to meet power needs.
Issues: The main issue was the acute power shortage in the State, the responsibility of the Governments to address the gap between demand and supply, and the corridor congestion affecting power supply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for public amenities, observed the steps being taken to resolve the power shortage, and refrained from issuing specific directions, considering power generation and distribution as policy decisions of the Governments.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were disposed of with observations, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2012 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 05.03.2012 and to end the unprecedented energy power crisis in the State of Tamil Nadu alone for the past more than 5 years.
2. W.P(MD)No.4503 of 2012 has been filed in public interest, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to give sufficient power (electricity) to the Tamil Nadu State.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of both the writ petitions are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2012, a practising lawyer, approached this Court against the acute power shortage in the State. According to him, there is no power shortage in the other southern States, namely, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. He alleged that due to the inimical attitude of the Government of India, there were power cuts in the State of Tamil Nadu, which affected the students, industrial units, small scale and middle scale industries. Further, he added that the total need of the State is about 22,000 MW and the production at Neyveli alone is 26,000 MW, which is more than the consumption need of the State of Tamil Nadu. The application of the State for Corridor Transmission from the northern States, was rejected by the Central Load Dispatching Authority and the Power Grid Corporation. Though the State had contracted for 500 MW from Gujarat, only 203 MW could be transmitted. Despite the State had contracted to an extent of 1,750 MW of power from the other States, the Central Load Dispatching Authority had released the corridor availability only to the extent of 350 MW, it is contended. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.03.2012 to the respondents 1 to 3, however, no response is forthcoming from them. Hence, he is before this Court.
3.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is contended that the petitioner has not made the representation to the proper authority and all the States in the Southern Region experienced the power shortage. The power shortages in the State was due to the inadequate tie-ups with the long term sources of generation and there was a huge gap between the demand and supply, despite maximum possible power was being scheduled through short term open access. The share of Tamil Nadu in the Neyveli, is 1,434 MW out of 2,740 MW. The peak demand of the State for the period between April 2011 and March 2012, was 12,813 MW and 10,566 MW was met out with a shortfall of 17.5%. The grievance of the petitioner was addressed by the authorities concerned in all earnestness. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
3.3. The second respondent, in the counter affidavit, contended that the issue involved in this writ petition was looking after by the Ministry of Power and hence, the second respondent is not a necessary party.
3.4. The third respondent, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the power crisis in the Southern Region in the State was due to the inordinate delay in commissioning of huge quantum of planned generations, which increased the gap between the demand and supply. Despite the same, the State had not tied-up with any generating project on long term basis. Further, the State had not made any application for Long Term Access as per CERC Regulations. Therefore, the third respondent denied the allegations that partiality was shown to the State and that the third respondent was responsible for the Corridor Congestion. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
3.5. The fifth respondent, in his counter affidavit, among other things, contended that the quantum of power required to supply the demand uninterruptedly was around 12,000 MW, but the power available from various sources would be 8,000 MW, which resulted in severe power shortage of 4,000 MW, besides, narrated the events that had happened.
