Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
& HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Case No.: 38032/2024
Case Title: SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LIMITED VS. ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Case details: Appeal has been filed by M/s. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd and M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission wherein the State Commission has decided that the petition is not barred by limitation and that the Power Purchase Agreement.
Facts: The Appellants are the distribution and transmission licensees, having area of operation within the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Respondent No. 1 i.e. APERC is the State Regulatory Commission having powers to adjudicate the matter in hand inter-alia vested with the functions under section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Respondent No. 2 is the generating station having setup the 20 MW bagasse-based cogeneration power project.
The APERC issued consent to the PPA on 4.1.2003 along with the tariff payable to the developer indicated at article 2.2 of the PPA.
The Respondent No. 2 filed a Writ Petition being WP No.7395/2003 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court passed interim orders on 02.05.2003 directing APTRANSCO to purchase entire energy supplied by the generator at adhoc tariff of Rs. 2.00 per unit.
the Division bench of High Court of AP passed orders on 10.07.2003 in WA No. 745/2003 clarifying that APTRANSCO is bound to purchase not the entire power generated by the Respondent No. 2 but the power, which they are bound to purchase as per the terms of PPA entered between the parties, the High Court of AP also clarified that pending the writ petition the State Commission can hear and dispose of review petition in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Division Bench of High Court of AP on 10.07.2003 in WA No. 745 of 2003, the State Commission heard the review petition filed by APTRANSCO and passed the order on 01.10.2003 holding that there was an error crept-in while issuing directions by the Commission in its order dated 17.03.2003 to purchase the entire power and the same are cancelled.
The Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals being CA No. 5157 & CA No. 5159 of 2005 vide judgment dated 13.10.2011 directing that the State Commission has expertise in determining the price and tariff of power and therefore, the State Commission shall consider all relevant materials and factors and finally determine the price for power supplied from 13.01.2003 to 21.01.2004, the disputed period.
The Appellants claimed that it is a settled principle of law that limitation applies to adjudicatory proceedings before Respondent No. 1 under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Claim Petition is therefore beyond limitation and merits dismissal on this ground alone, as per the clause 5.2 of the PPA the Appellant is liable to pay interest @10% p.a. to the Respondent No.2.
Court Observed: – From the above facts, the tariff as determined by this Tribunal achieved finality only once the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of this Tribunal by dismissing the CAs and subsequent Curative Petition filed by the Appellant.
Held by Court: From the above, it is seen that the State Commission has dealt the issue of Limitation in detail, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and, has rightly justified that the OP 10 of 2018 filed by the Respondent No. 2 is not barred by Limitation, also made reference to the observation of the Supreme Court.
