Judgments on One-Time GNA Charges in India
In the dynamic Indian power sector, General Network Access (GNA) has become a cornerstone for generators and transmission entities seeking long-term access to the interstate transmission system (ISTS). However, questions around Judgments on One Time GNA Charges frequently arise, particularly regarding one-time submissions, strict deadlines for Connectivity Bank Guarantees (Conn-BGs), and potential relaxations. These issues often hinge on compliance with GNA Regulations notified by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). This post delves into pivotal judgments, highlighting procedural validity, evidence of compliance, and regulatory discretion to help stakeholders navigate these complexities.
Note: This article provides general information based on publicly available judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
Overview of GNA Regulations and One-Time Charges
The GNA Regulations, 2022, govern the grant of general network access, emphasizing timelines for applications, Conn-BG submissions, and connectivity allocations. A key stipulation is the submission of Conn-BGs within one month from the grant of connectivity. Failure to comply typically results in application termination or closure, underscoring the one-time nature of these charges and deadlines. Courts and regulators have repeatedly examined these provisions in disputes involving Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd. (CTUIL) and applicants. Petition under Section 79(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 65 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking appropriate directions to the Central Transmission Utility of India to accept the Reserve Bank of India’s Letter of Mandate for the purpose of granting connectivity. Indian Railways - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10
For instance, On 20.08.2024, the CTUIL intimated Southern Railways that it had not received the required Conn-BGs and further insisted that in accordance with the GNA Regulations, the Conn-BGs must be submitted within the stipulated time, i.e., one month from the grant of the connectivity. Petition under Section 79(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 65 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking appropriate directions to the Central Transmission Utility of India to accept the Reserve Bank of India’s Letter of Mandate for the purpose of granting connectivity. Indian Railways - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10
Similarly, The Petitioner was also informed that in case the Conn-BG2 was not submitted within the statutorily granted time of one month, the connectivity applications would be considered closed. Petition under Sections 79(1)(c) and (f) of Electricity Act 2003 seeking quashing/setting aside of the letters dated 15.07.2024 issued by the Respondent whereby Petitioner’s in-principle connectivity with respect to 50 MW & 150 MW capacity has been cancelled on the purported ground that the Petitioner has not furnished the requisite CONN-BG2 within the prescribed timelines. Avaada Energy Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48
These rulings affirm that procedural timelines are sacrosanct, akin to departmental proceedings where courts refrain from assessing the merits at preliminary stages. Mithilesh Kumar Singh VS Government Of India Through Central Vigilance Commission - Jharkhand
Key Findings from Judgments: Procedural Validity and Compliance
1. Mandatory Submission of Conn-BGs
Judgments consistently uphold the validity of initiating proceedings under GNA Regulations, stressing that High Courts or Appellate Tribunals cannot delve into the truth of charges or evidence at early stages. The learned Single Judge in relevant cases noted that procedural adherence is paramount. Mithilesh Kumar Singh VS Government Of India Through Central Vigilance Commission - Jharkhand
Non-compliance with the one-month Conn-BG deadline leads to severe consequences:- Application termination, as seen in cases involving North Central Railways: On 17.09.2024, the CTUIL issued a letter to North Central Railways informing it about the termination of its application for 50 MW GNA. Petition under Section 79(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 65 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking appropriate directions to the Central Transmission Utility of India to accept the Reserve Bank of India’s Letter of Mandate for the purpose of granting connectivity. Indian Railways - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10- Forfeiture of charges, ensuring security for the transmission system.
Regulation 8.3(e) mandates submission within one month of intimation by CTUIL, with clear warnings of closure. Petition under Sections 79(1)(c) and (f) of Electricity Act 2003 seeking quashing/setting aside of the letters dated 15.07.2024 issued by the Respondent whereby Petitioner’s in-principle connectivity with respect to 50 MW & 150 MW capacity has been cancelled on the purported ground that the Petitioner has not furnished the requisite CONN-BG2 within the prescribed timelines. Avaada Energy Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48
2. Scrutiny of Evidence and Inconsistencies
Prosecution or regulatory evidence in GNA disputes is rigorously assessed. Courts have highlighted inconsistencies undermining cases:- Careless investigation by agencies erodes credibility. DAHYABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat- Only partial witness or documentary support suffices rarely; full corroboration is needed.
In GNA contexts, this translates to verifying application timelines, ISTS identification, and BG submissions. However, we also note that the responsibility for preparing the GNA Application by the STU has been introduced vide the GNA Regulations, and OPTCL was making the application for the first time; accordingly, we find it appropriate to allow relaxation. Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL) vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 136
The court in one case concluded it was risky to rely on the evidence presented, leading to favorable outcomes for appellants where defects were evident. DAHYABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat
3. Acquittals or Reliefs Due to Defects
Numerous appellants have secured relief due to prosecution or regulatory lapses. In criminal analogs applied to regulatory matters, acquittals stem from unreliable genesis of incidents or inconsistent testimonies—mirroring GNA cases with flawed applications or delays. DAHYABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat
Legal Principles Governing One-Time GNA Charges
CERC's Practice Directions allowing shifts were challenged as ultra vires, with tribunals ruling that neither Connectivity Regulations, 2009 nor GNA Regulations permit reallocation. PROJECT NINE RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226PROJECT NINE RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 403 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 403
Shifting Connectivity and Reallocation Challenges
Attempts to shift connectivity from one sub-station to another based on timestamps have been rebuffed. CERC under the pretext of exercising its regulatory power, issued Practice Directions allowing shifting of Connectivity... from one sub-station to another within a State, based on the date and time stamp. This was deemed contrary to regulations prioritizing original grant dates. PROJECT NINE RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226
Such rulings preserve queue integrity, especially with single queues for categories. Rays Power Infra Limited vs State Of Karnataka Department Of Energy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22722
Regulatory Discretion and Deadline Relaxations
While strict, regulators exercise discretion for first-time applicants or delays:- We find it appropriate to allow relaxation of the stipulated deadline of 30.09.2024 as a one-time... Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL) vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 136- State governments holding applications on pretexts may face directives for expeditious processing, avoiding enormous charges. Rays Power Infra Limited vs State Of Karnataka Department Of Energy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22722
This balances compliance with practicality, as in cases revising COD linked to GNA grants. Petition under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act 2003 and applicable provisions of the CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations 2022 and the CERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking revision of Effective Date of 100 MW General Network Access granted in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 222 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 222Hindalco Industries Limited vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 138 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 138
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Judgments on one-time GNA charges emphasize robust compliance with one-month Conn-BG deadlines, rejecting shifts post-grant, while allowing rare relaxations. The acquittal of appellants in flawed cases underscores the need for thorough preparation. DAHYABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - GujaratMithilesh Kumar Singh VS Government Of India Through Central Vigilance Commission - Jharkhand
Key Recommendations:- Ensure Conn-BG submission within timelines to avoid closure.- Verify first-come-first-serve priority before seeking shifts.- Leverage regulatory discretion judiciously for first-time hurdles.- Conduct meticulous investigations and corroborations.
By adhering to these principles, power entities can mitigate risks. Stay updated on CERC and APTEL developments.
References:Mithilesh Kumar Singh VS Government Of India Through Central Vigilance Commission - JharkhandDAHYABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR VS STATE OF GUJARAT - GujaratPetition under Section 79(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 65 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking appropriate directions to the Central Transmission Utility of India to accept the Reserve Bank of India’s Letter of Mandate for the purpose of granting connectivity. Indian Railways - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 10Petition under Sections 79(1)(c) and (f) of Electricity Act 2003 seeking quashing/setting aside of the letters dated 15.07.2024 issued by the Respondent whereby Petitioner’s in-principle connectivity with respect to 50 MW & 150 MW capacity has been cancelled on the purported ground that the Petitioner has not furnished the requisite CONN-BG2 within the prescribed timelines. Avaada Energy Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 48Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL) vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 136Rays Power Infra Limited vs State Of Karnataka Department Of Energy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22722PROJECT NINE RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 226PROJECT NINE RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 403 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 403Petition under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act 2003 and applicable provisions of the CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations 2022 and the CERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2023 seeking revision of Effective Date of 100 MW General Network Access granted in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 222 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CERC) 222
#GNARegulations, #CERCJudgments, #PowerSectorLaw
