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) 58

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member, Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
Lord Chloro Alkali Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission – Respondent
APPEAL No.282 OF 2016|APPEAL No.313 OF 2016|APPEAL No.314 OF 2016|APPEAL No.165 OF 2017|APPEAL No.166 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand K. Ganesan, Swapna Seshadri, P. N. Bhandari
For the Respondents: Raj Kumar Mehta, M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Ranjitha Ramachandran, Poorva Saigal, Anushree Bardhan, Shubham Arya, Pallavi Saigal, Reeha Singh, Tanya Singh, Shirin Gupta

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • electricity law
  • practice and procedure
    • regulatory procedure
      • issue framing (Para 24, 25, 26)
    • appellate procedure
      • remand (Para 29, 30)

Table of Contents

1. Appeals against determination of additional surcharge on open access consumers under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. (Para 1 , 8 , 9 )

2. Dispute over whether additional surcharge requires proof that stranded capacity is solely attributable to open access consumers. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )

3. Appeals allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded for fresh determination on causation of stranded capacity. (Para 29 , 30 )

4. What is the condition for levy of additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003?

The distribution licensee must conclusively demonstrate that its stranded capacity is solely attributable to open access consumers, not other reasons. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )

5. What is the purpose of additional surcharge under Section 42(4)?

To meet the fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising from its obligation to supply, compensating for stranded costs due to open access consumers exiting. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )

6. Did the Commission properly frame the issues for determination?

No, the Commission failed to frame an issue on whether stranded capacity was solely due to open access consumers, despite objections. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )

7. What evidence must a distribution licensee provide to claim additional surcharge?

It must demonstrate that it is unable to schedule power under PPAs because open access consumers are procuring from other sources, leading to stranded capacity. (Para 23 , 27 , 28 )

JUDGMENT

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The open access consumers in the State of Rajasthan have filed this batch of five appeals impugning therein the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in petition no.548/2015 filed by the three discoms operating in the State of Rajasthan namely Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (in short “JVVNL”), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (in short “AVVNL”), and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (in short “JoVVNL”), whereby the Commission has determined the additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to be applicable on open access consumers in the State as Rs.0.80/kWh effective from 01.05.2016.

Description of the parties: -

2. Appellants in appeal no.282/2016 (namely M/s Lord Chloro Alkali Limited) has a manufacturing facility in Alwar in the State of Rajasthan and is retail supply consumer of JVVNL with a contract demand of 30,000kVa. It has also been granted open access permission within the contract demand and has been procuring electricity through open access from Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) since March, 2015.

3. Appellant in appeal no.313/2016 M/s Rajasthan Textile Mills Association is an association of textile mills in the State of Rajasthan which was formed by the different industrial units for their welfare and better functioning. The association had, on behalf of its members, filed objections before the Commission objecting to the levy of additional surcharge by the distribution licensees and participated in the hearing of the petition.

4. Appellant in appeal no.314/2016 M/s Rajasthan Steel Chambers is an association of steel industries in the State of Rajasthan and was formed by the different industrial units for their welfare and better functioning. This association also had participated in the hearing of the petition before the Commission on behalf of its members.

5. Appellant in appeal no.165/2017 M/s Ambuja Cement Limited has its factory in the Village Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

6. Appellant in appeal no.166/2017 M/s J K Cement Works has its factory premises in Kailash Nagar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

7. The three distribution companies namely JVVNL, AVVNL and JdVVNL operating in the State of Rajasthan have been impleaded as respondents in these appeals apart from the Commission.

Facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals: -

8. It appears that the three distribution licensees operating in the State of Rajasthan namely JVVNL, AVVNL and JdVVNL had collectively approached the Commission by way of petition no.548/2015 for determination of additional surcharge under Section 42(4) and 39(2)(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 4(2) and 16 of RERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004 (in short Open Access Regulations, 2004). In response to the public notices issued by the Commission about the petition inviting objections/comments/suggestions from the persons desirous of submitting the same, 41 organizations/entities including the appellants submitted their comments/suggestions. They also participated in the proceedings of the petition.

9. Upon considering the material before it and on hearing the petitioner as well as the objectors including the appellants, the Commission passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 thereby allowing the claim of the distribution licenses for additional surcharge from the open access consumers which was determined as Rs.0.80/unit to be effective from 01.05.2016.

Submissions on behalf of the parties: -

10. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the distribution companies. Written submissions filed by the learned counsels have also been perused.

11. The primary argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that the Commission has proceeded on the assumption that additional surcharge under Section 42(4) o

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