Dismissed

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012 ---------------------- Appeal No.15 of 2012 of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce v. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

APTEL15 Apr 2013Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012 ---------------------- APPEAL No.15 of 2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity disposed of a review petition filed by Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce against a judgment in Appeal no. 15 of 2012. Finding that the grounds were already argued in the main appeal without showing new material or error, the Tribunal dismissed the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition is dismissed without any cost.

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012… — Service and Employment | APTEL (2013)

¶1

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶2

Before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶4

th Dated : 1 5 April, 2013

¶5

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Nath, Technical Member In the matter of

¶6

Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce …Review Chamber House, Industrial Estate Petitioner/ Bazpur Road, Kashipur Appellant(s) Distt. Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand – 244 113

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission 1^st Floor, Institution of Engineers (I) Bldg. Near ISBT Majra Dehradun – 248 006

¶9

….Respondent(s)

¶10

2. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Urja Bhawan, Khari Wali Road Deharadun – 248 006

¶11

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Mr. M.L. Lahoty Mr. Paban K. Sharma Mr. Gargi B. Bharali

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent(s):

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Review Petition has been filed by Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce, the Appellant for review of

¶17

the judgment dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal no. 15 of 2012. The Petitioner/Appellant has sought review of the judgment on account of the following:-

¶18

(a) The Tribunal did not render a finding on the issue

¶19

of load factor based tariff formulation for industrial consumer.

¶20

(b) The Tribunal has overlooked the significant factual aspect that the load factor based tariff has been decided for industrial consumer whereas the cost

¶21

of supply has been determined on the basis of

¶22

average cost of supply as against the actual cost

¶23

of supply.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶26

¶27

cost of supply includes 18% distribution loss whereas the distribution loss of LT and HT categories is not more than 1 % to 2 %.

¶28

(d) The Tribunal while accepting the stand of UPCL that the tariff is determined on accrual basis, has ignored the fact that the shortfall due to nonrecovery of dues of previous year is recovered through the next tariff resulting increase in tariff.

¶29

(e) The Tribunal has ignored the fact that in the absence of any benefit and concession, in the year 2007-08 and growth pattern was considered at 7% and it was observed that the pattern may not continue in future and therefore moderate growth rate was taken into consideration.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶32

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner/Appellant.

¶33

We find that the issue relating to load factor based tariff has been deliberated in the judgment dated 18.02.2013 in paragraphs 22 to 25. The Tribunal has also considered the issue of average cost of supply and voltage-wise cost of supply in paragraph 7 to 12 and 19 and 20 of the judgment. The issue of sales forecast has been discussed in paragraph no. 15. The issue of ARR

¶34

on accrual basis also has been considered in paragraphs 17 and 18.

¶35

The Review Petitioner/Appellant has not pointed out

¶36

any error apparent on the face of the record or any new and important material or given other sufficient reasons so as to review our judgment. He has made various

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012

¶39

submissions which were already made in the main

¶40

Appeal and which were duly considered by the Tribunal while rendering the judgment. The grounds of Appeal

¶41

could not be entertained as the ground of Review.

¶42

Therefore, we find no reason to allow review of the judgment dated 18.02.2013.

¶43

Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed without any cost.

¶44

¶45

7. Pronounced in the open court of 1 5 day of April, 2013.

¶46

(Rakesh Nath) (Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam) Technical Member Chairperson

¶47

√ REPORTABLE/ NON-REPORTABLE mk

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012 ---------------------- Appeal No.15 of 2012 of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce v. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012 ---------------------- Appeal No.15 of 2012 of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce v. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Review Petition No. 09 of 2012 in Appeal No. 123 0f 2011 ---------------------- Appeal No. 123 of 2011 of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Review Petition No. 09 of 2012 in Appeal No. 123 0f 2011 ---------------------- Appeal No. 123 of 2011 of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Review Petition No. 5 of 2012 in Appeal No. 102 of 2011 of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited. Versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Review Petition No. 7 of 2012 in Appeal No. 40 of 2011 ---------------------- Appeal No. 40 of 2011 of Damodar Valley Corporation Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Review Petition No.12 of 2012 in Appeal No. 17 of 2012 of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. Versus Rajasthan State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

R.P. No. 3 of 2013 & Ia No. 126 of 2013 in Appeal No. 172 of 2011 R.P. No. 4 of 2013 in Appeal No. 166 of 2011 Review Pe of Sardar Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Review Petition No. 2 of 2013 in Appeal No. 137 of 2011 of M/s Jsw Energy Ltd. Versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

R.P. No. 8 of 2013 in Appeal No. 76 of 2012 ---------------------- Appeal No. 76 of 2012 of M/s. Raj West Power Limited Versus Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal of 125 of 2012 of M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited Versus The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 81 of 2012 of M/s. Enercon (I) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 257 of 2012 of The Southern India Mills’ Association Versus Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution & Ors.

Review Petition no. 7 of 2013 in Appeal no. 15 of 2012 ---------------------- Appeal No.15 of 2012 of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce Versus Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

E.P. no. 1 of 2013 in Appeal No. 211 of 2012,I.A. no. 92 of 2013 in Dfr no. 430 of 2013 in Appeal No. 234 of 2012,I.A. n of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

E.P. no. 1 of 2013 in Appeal No. 211 of 2012,I.A. no. 92 of 2013 in Dfr no. 430 of 2013 in Appeal No. 234 of 2012,I.A. n of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.