2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 255
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION – Respondent
RP No. 21 2023
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)
&
RP No. 22 OF 2023 Dated: 19.12.2024 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chairperson Hon’ble Smt. Seema Gupta, Technical Member (Electricity)
In the matter of:
RP No. 21 OF 2023 NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED Through its Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna – 800021 … Appellant No.1 VERSUS
1. BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Through its Secretary, GroundFloor, Vidyut Bhawan- II, B.S.E.B. Campus, Patna - 800021 ... Respondent No.1 Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Anushree Bardhan Srishti Khindaria Surbhi Kapoor Aneesh Bajaj for App. 1 Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Ravi Kishore for Res. 1 SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED Through its Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna – 800021 … Appellant No.1 VERSUS
1. BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Through its Secretary, Ground Floor, Vidyut Bhawan- II, B.S.E.B. Campus, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna - 800021 ... Respondent No.1 Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Anushree Bardhan Srishti Khindaria Surbhi Kapoor Aneesh Bajaj for App. 1 Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Ravi Kishore for Res. 1
ORDER
(PER HON’BLE MRS. SEEMA GUPTA, TECHNICAL MEMBER)
1. The present Review Petitions RP 21 of 2023 and RP 22 of 2023 have been filed for rectification, modification of Common Judgement dated 25.10.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 117 of 2017 and Appeal No. 118 of 2017 by South Bihar Power Distribution Co Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "SBPDCL”) and North Bihar Power Distribution Co Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "NBPDCL”). In the present review petition, Appellants/ Review Petitioners have limited their challenge to the issue of revenue surplus of Bihar State Electricity Board period till 30.10.2012 being adjusted in the revenue of the Appellants/ Review Petitioners related to Annual Performance review for 2015-16.
2. Earlier challenging the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission/BERC") in Case Nos.49 of 2015 and 50 of 2015 pursuant to a remand order dated 25.11.2016 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 142 of 2016 and 141 of 2016 with regard to True-up of financials for FY 2014-15, Annual Performance Review (APR) for FY 2015-16, Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) for second control period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and tariff for retail sale of electricity for the FY 2016-17, the Appellants/Review Petitioners- North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited ("NBPDCL") have filed an Appeal No. 117 of 2017 and the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited ("SBPDCL") has filed Appeal No. 118 of 2017 before this Tribunal. In the said Petitions, the State Commission has disallowed the claims of the Appellants/Review Petitioners with regard to the issue of Recovery of Surplus of past period ( FY 2015-16) and net prior period charges (FY 2014-15) , and aggrieved by the said two disallowances, Appellants approached this Tribunal vide Appeal 117 of 2017 and Appeal
118 of 2017.
3. This Tribunal in its common judgement dated 25.10.2018 in Appeal 117 of 2017 and Appeal 118 of 2017 opined that the State Commission has rightly adjusted the surplus of the past period pertaining to erstwhile BSEB period, while making true up of ARR in line with its Regulations and there is no force in the contentions of the Appellants that Discoms have nothing to do with the surplus of erstwhile BSEB period.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.10.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 117 of 2017 and 118 of 2017, the Appellants had invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 239-240 of 2019. The Supreme Court by its order dated 04.02.2019 disposed of the said Civil Appeals by holding as under:
“2. In our considered view, the issue raised does not appear to have been comprehensively consi