CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI Petition No. 305/MP/2015 Coram:

Shri Jishnu Barua, Chairperson Shri Ramesh Babu V., Member Shri Harish Dudani, Member Shri Ravinder Singh Dhillon, Member Date of Order: 11th February, 2026 In the matter of Petition under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of the Power Supply Agreement dated 5.1.2011 and Power Purchase Agreement dated 25.3.2011 for directions to make Energy Charges as pass-through based on the actual fuel cost incurred by the Petitioner.

And In the Matter of:

Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited, 9B, 9^th Floor, Hansalaya Building

15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 …... Petitioner VERSUS

1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan (7^th Floor), DJ-Block, Sector-II, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091, West Bengal

2. PTC India Limited, 2^nd Floor, NBCC Tower, 15 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066

3. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, NPKRR Maligai, 6^th Floor, Eastern Wing, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600002,Tamil Nadu

4. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Presently known as Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, HEC Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004. …Respondents Parties present:

Shri Deepak Khurana, Advocate, APNRL Shri Vineet Tayal, Advocate, APNRL Ms. Monalika Chaudhary, Advocate, APNRL Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Advocate, APNRL Shri Ravi Kishore, Advocate, PTC Ms. Deepti Dash, Advocate, PTC Shri Amit Kapur, Advocate, WBSEDCL Shri Avdesh Mandloi, Advocate, WBSEDCL Shri Akshat Jain, Advocate, WBSEDCL Shri Sayan Ghosh, Advocate, WBSEDCL

ORDER

Background The Petitioner, Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited (in short ‘APNRL’), had filed the Petition under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act’) read with Article 10 of the Power Sale Agreement (PSA) dated 5.1.2011 executed between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 and the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 25.3.2011 entered into between Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner seeking directions to the Respondents to make energy charges as pass through based on the actual fuel cost incurred by the Petitioner.

2. The Commission, after considering the submissions made by the parties, vide order dated 29.1.2020, observed that the Petitioner shall be entitled to compensation to the extent of shortfall in tapering linkage granted to it pending operationalisation of the captive coal block, which is met through e-auction coal or imported coal, etc., for generation and supply of electricity to the Respondent WBSEDCL. Accordingly, Petitioner was directed to approach the Commission through a fresh petition giving details of the tapering linkage granted to it, the reasons for the delay in development and operationalisation of the captive coal block, the coal requirement met through e-

auction/imported coal to meet the shortfall in supply under the tapering linkage. The relevant portion of the said order dated 29.1.2020 is extracted as under:

“32. We have considered the submissions of the Petitioner and WBSEDCL. We intend to first deal with the objections of WBSEDCL before deciding whether cancellation of coal block by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court amounted to change in law in terms of Article 10 of the PPA/PSA. The first objection of WBSEDCL is that neither the PPA nor the PSA mentioned any specific captive coal block and hence, the Petitioner cannot seek any relief on account of cancellation of captive block. We have gone through the provisions of the PPA and the PSA and the minutes of the meeting dated 3.1.2011 held between the representatives of the Petitioner, WBSEDCL and PTC. The meeting dated 3.1.2011 was held for negotiation of rate and finalization of PPA for purchase of power from the Petitioner through PTC India Limited. Para 8 of the minutes specifically mentions that “APRNL has a captive coal block in Ganeshpur at Jharkhand and this coal block is a joint venture with TISCO”.