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

2025 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 37


IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)
APPEAL No. 99 of 2017 Dated : 11th September, 2025 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:
Chettinad Power Corporation Private Ltd.
Rani Seethai Building
603, Anna Salai Chennai – 600006 E-mail: prasanth.s@chettinad.com … Appellant Versus
11. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Through Chairman & Managing Director Saudamini Plot No. 2, Sector-29, IFFCO Chowk, Gurgaon – 122001 Email ID: kamohan@powergridindia.com
22. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through Secretary
3rd & 4th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110001 Email ID: secy@cercindi.gov.in
33. Central Transmission Utility of India Limited Through its Chairman & Managing Director, 1st Floor, Saudamini, Plot No. 2, Near IFFCO Chowk Metro Station Sector 29, Gurugram – 122001 Email id: achoudhary@powergrid.in … Respondent (s)
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Anand K. Ganesan Swapna Seshadri Harsha Rao for App.
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Deep Rao Palepu for Res. 1 Abiha Zaidi Suriti Chowdhary Manoj Bhargav Anuj Bhave for Res. 3

JUDGMENT

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The order dated 8th March, 2017 passed by 2nd Respondent – Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short “Commission” or “CERC”), vide which it held that as per Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of Connectivity, Long-term Access and Mid-term Open Access in the Inter-State Transmission and related matters) Regulations, 2009, (herein after referred to as “Connectivity Regulations”), the Long-term access applicant being effected by Force Majeure or reasons beyond its control cannot be a ground for non- signing of the Long Term Access Agreement and the failure to sign the LTA agreement within the stipulated period would necessarily result in encashment of Bank Guarantee submitted along with LTA application, has been assailed in this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the Appellant proposed to set up 2x600 MW sub-critical thermal plant at Erukkatanchery, Kazhippanallur and Manickapangu villages in Tharangambadi Taluk of Nagapattinam district in Tamil Nadu. The project was scheduled to be commissioned in the year 2015. The Appellant applied for connectivity on 23rd September 2010 and for Long-Term Access (LTA) on 15th February, 2011 for 1110 MW. The application was accompanied by a Bank Guarantee of 1.10 crores in accordance with the connectivity Regulations. In the 13th meeting of the Southern Region Constituents (SRC) regarding connectivity and LTA applications, the Appellant was granted connectivity as well as LTA for 1110 MW and was advised by the 1st Respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (now CTUIL i.e. the Central Transmission Utility India Limited), vide letter 23rd December, 2011, to sign the LTA agreement within a period of 30 days from the date of the letter. The Appellant was granted environmental clearance for the power project on 20th January, 2011 on the basis of the recommendations of Environment and Assessment Committee, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The said environmental clearance was challenged before National Green Tribunal (NGT) and vide order dated 30th May, 2012, NGT observed that the Appellant was in substantial compliance and directed the Appellant to rectify certain procedural errors. Upon compliance with these directions of the NGT, Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) issued a corrigendum dated 13th June, 2013 to the environment clearance granted to the Appellant. Even the said corrigendum dated 13th June, 2013 was challenged by certain organizations before NGT Southern Zone. The matter was transferred to the NGT, Principal Bench and was numbered as Appeal No. 87 of 2014. The matter is still stated to be subjudice before NGT.

3. Meanwhile, in the 17th Meeting of Southern Region Constituents held on 31st July, 2014, the Appellant and CTUIL agreed that CTUIL may encash the Bank Guarantee of the Appellant on or after 1st February, 2015 if the Appellant did not get environmental clearance from NGT by that date. The relevant portion of the said meeting is extracted herein below :-

“6.5 DGM (CTU) informed that LTA was granted to Chettinad Power Corporation Ltd. (2x600 MW) ON 27.12.2011 but the generation developer failed to sign LTA agreement and furnish Bank Guarantee till date. The representative from Chettinad Power Corporation informed that they have received all necessary clearances but the final hearing of NGT order on environment clearance for their project has not yet received and so, they requested for time extension of six months for execution of the LTA Agreement and furnishing of construction stage BG. In this regard, Director, CEA suggested that Chettinad Power may submit a letter within say one week mentioning that CTU may encash their BG on after 1.2.2015 if they still do not get environmental clearance from NGT, which was agreed by CTU and M/s Chettinad Power.

4. In pursuance to the discussion held in the 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