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

2013 Supreme(All) 1652

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : UMA NATH SINGH AND DR. SATISH CHANDRA, JJ.
M/s. NOIDA POWER COMPANY LIMITED, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, H-BLOCK, ALPHA-II SECTOR, GREATER NOIDA ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER .....Opposite Parties
(Writ Petition No. 9892 (M/B) of 2008, decided on 1st July, 2013)

Headnote:Electricity Act, 2003—Sections 14, 3, 131—Indian Electricity Act, 1910—Section 3(1)—Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948—Sections 2(6), 5, 18, 22, 33, 47 and 48—Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998—Section 2(f)—U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999—Sections 14(1), 13, 15, 23—Indian Trust Act, 1882—Section 17—Electricity Supply—Rights of distribution licensee—Petitioner a power company sought for direction to respondent No. 1 to assign Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs’) entered into with generating stations and held by respondent No. 2, to petitioner Company and supply of power as per its load profile, i.e. 110 MVA—Petitioner aggrieved by act of respondents in not assigning/allocating the existing PPA—Whether after termination of existing agreement on 22.8.2008, it is no longer competent for the UPPCL successor of the UPSEB to supply any electricity to the petitioner-Company—Petitioner-Company not a distribution company—PPAs which had vested in UPPCL by virtue of Section 13 (3) © of U.P. Act of 1999 were not transferred to four specified distribution companies—Right of petitioner to distribute and supply electricity to consumers arose only from agreement dated 11.11.1993, which has already expired and no new agreement entered thereafter—Merely on the basis of licence granted to petitioner under 1910 Act on 30.8.1993, it would not become entitled to seek the supply of 45 MVA electricity or assignment of PPAs—However, no other person can supply electricity in the area of Greater Noida till such time the licence granted to petitioner remains valid—Alleged licence only provide for area and not for period of supply—Only dispute that survives is regarding the right of petitioner to get supply of electricity as per its load profile from the allocation of PPAs held by UPPCL—Petitioner may supply electricity in terms of the licence by making its own arrangement by entering into the PPAs directly with generating stations—Petitioner not being ‘parens patriae’ cannot purport to act on behalf of consumers—Duty of UPSEB not as trustee—Plea of discrimination ruled out—UPPCL has not shown any undue preference in favour of other distribution companies—Petitioner has violated the terms of agreement and breached the undertaking given to High Court for setting up the generating plant—Prayer of petitioner-Company claiming to have enforceable rights for assignment of PPAs as held by UPPCL, in its favour declined with—Further direction isssued. [Paras 124 to 160]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Uma Nath Singh, J.—Petitioner-M/s Noida Power Company Limited (for short ‘’the NPCL’) by way of this writ petition, inter alia, has prayed for: (i) issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 to assign Power Purchase Agreements (for short ‘the PPAs’) entered into with generating stations and held by respondent No. 2, the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the UPPCL’) to the petitioner Company as per the provisions of the Electricity Act of 2003 read with National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy as notified by the Government of India; (ii) supply of power as per its load profile to the petitioner Company which, according to the petitioner, works out to be 110 MVA (on the date of filing of writ petition) till the assignment of the PPAs is not done, and (iii) issuance of a suitable writ/direction for quashment of the notice/letter No. 479/SA (Com) dated 22.8.2008 issued by respondent No. 2 (the UPPCL) apart from other or further orders which this Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that in the year 1992 the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, (a body constituted by Government of Uttar Pradesh for the integral development of Greater Noida area and hereinafter to be referred to as ‘’the Greater Noida Authority’) promoted the petitioner Company as a public limited Company for the purpose of undertaking supply of electricity to consumers in the Greater Noida area as separate venture distinct from the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called ‘’the UPSEB’) which had been undertaking such distribution and supply of electricity in the State of U.P.

3. Pursuant to the above, vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 11th December, 1992 entered into between the Greater Noida Authority and the CESCON Ltd. (now known as the CESC Ltd.), the CESCON joined hands with the Greater Noida Authority, as Co-promoters of the petitioner Company. The Greater Noida Authority which is a public authority of the Government of Uttar Pradesh holds 27% equity in the petitioner Company and the balance 73% is held by nominees of the CESC Ltd. The Chairman of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has at all times been the ex officio Chairman of the petitioner Company. The purpose of the above special arrangement has been to provide the Greater Noida area which was being promoted as a distinct integrated industrial area in close proximity to Delhi to have dedicated electricity distribution under a public-private partnership whereby the day to day management and control were given to private sector but at the same time for the decision on policy matter, participation of the Greater Noida Authority was made necessary.

4. The petitioner-Company was granted a licence by the Government of U.P. under Section 3(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short ‘’the Act of 1910’) on 30.8.1993 for distribution of Electricity in the area of Greater Noida. The said licence was subsequently amended by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to extend the licensed area of the petitioner Company. According to the petitioner, it has continued to be Distribution Licensee in the above area as per the licence under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1910 and also in terms of Section 2(6) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short ‘’the Supply Act of 1948’), Section 2(f) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (for short ‘’the Regulatory Commission Act of 1998’) and Section 14 (1) of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for short ‘the U.P. Act of 1999’). Moreover, consequent to the enactment of the Electricity Act of 2003, the petitioner Company became a deemed distribution licensee in terms of Section 14 thereof.

5. Pursuant to the above, on 15.11.1993, the petitioner Company entered into an agreement with the UPSEB for receiving s








































































































































































































































































































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