Remanded

A.No. 223 of 2019 & Ia No. 139 of 2022 of Torrent Power Limited. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.

APTEL3 Feb 2022A.No. 223 of 2019 & IA No. 139 of 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal after the parties agreed to remit the matter to the State Commission for reconsideration of methodology regarding carrying costs with an expedite direction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to State Commission for reconsideration of carrying cost methodology.

A.No. 223 of 2019 & Ia No. 139 of 2022 of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | APTEL (2022)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2019& IA NO.139 OF 2022

¶3

Dated: 03.02.2022

¶4

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba, Officiating Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

TORRENT POWER LIMITED “Samanvay”, 600, Tapovan, Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380015 Gujarat [Through its Authorized Representative: Shri Chetan Bundela] E mail: [email protected]

¶7

…. Appellant(s)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

¶10

A Commission constituted [Under the provisions of Repealed - Electricity Regulatory Commissions, 1998 Having its Office at – 6^th Floor, GIFT ONE Road 5C, Zone 5,GIFT City Gandhinagar – 382355 [Through its Secretary] E-mail :[email protected] …. Respondent(s)

¶11

Counsel for the Appellant (s) : Ms. Deepa Chawan Ms. Sonali JaitlyBakhshi Mr. JaiyeshBakhshi Mr. Arbaaz Hussain Ms. Tanima Gaur Ms. Jayshree Dugar Mr. Gaurav Misra Mr. Ravi Tyagi Mr. Pallav Pandey Mr. Shubanshu Gupta Mr. Palash Singhai Mr. Kabir Chhilwar Mr. Animesh Sinha Ms. Rini Badoni Ms. AsthaLumba Ms. Ananya Misra Ms. Sanjana Bakshi

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

Appeal No. 223 OF 2019

¶14

	Mr. Pragalbh Bhardwaj Mr. Manmilan Sidhu Mr. BalkishanLadhania Mr. OmungRajgupta Mr. Mayank Mishra Mr. Gaurav Yashwardhan
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :	Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Rai for R-1

¶15

J U D G M E N T (Oral)

¶16

PER HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA, OFFICIATING CHAIRPERSON

¶17

1. This matter has been taken up by video conference mode on account of pandemic conditions, it being not advisable to hold physical hearing.

¶18

2. The order under challenge by this appeal was rendered by the Respondent/State Commission on 24.04.2019 in respect of truing up in FY 2017-18, mid-term review of FY 2019-20 and 2020-21 and determination of tariff for FY 2019-20 in respect of the appellant – a distribution licensee. The grudge primarily urged by the appeal concerns the methodology adopted for considering the claim on account of carrying cost.

¶19

3. Ms. Deepa Chawan appearing for the appellant submitted that the subject matter at hand is covered by a series of judgments of this tribunal including judgments dated 04.10.2019 & 09.06.2020 in Appeal Nos. 246 of 2017 & 248 of 2017 respectively. The learned senior counsel for the Respondent Commission submitted that there are series of other judgments governing this issue and the matter has to be examined in light of the regulatory framework as in force at the relevant points of time.

¶20

Appeal No. 223 OF 2019

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

4. Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Commission, upon instructions, submitted that the Commission is inclined to revisit the issue if this tribunal were to so allow, subject to the position to be taken by the appellant, the matter to be remitted for the purpose. Ms. Deepa Chawan, advocate, appearing for the appellant agreed to the suggestion.

¶23

5. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, with the consent of both parties, we set aside and vacate the impugned order and remit the matter to the State Commission for reconsideration, the fresh order on the subject to be passed after hearing the relevant parties in accordance with law. Since the issue has been lingering for long, we would expect the State Commission to pass its fresh order expeditiously, preferably not later than four months from today.

¶24

5. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. The pending application being infructuous is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

PRONOUNCED IN THE VIRTUAL COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ON THIS 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.

¶26

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member

¶27

(Justice R.K. Gauba) Officiating Chairperson

¶28

pr/tp

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

Appeal No. 223 OF 2019

A.No. 223 of 2019 & Ia No. 139 of 2022 of Torrent Power Limited. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.No. 223 of 2019 & Ia No. 139 of 2022 of Torrent Power Limited. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.

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

Similar cases

A.No. 344 of 2021 and a.No. 9 of 2022 of Green Infra Renewable Energy Limited. Versus Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

A.No. 165 of 2018, a.No. 166 of 2018 and a.No. 219 of 2018 of M/S Responce Renewable Energy Ltd. Versus Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

A.No. 26 of 2020, a.No. 27 of 2020 and a.No. 28 of 2020 of Vaayu Renewable Energy (Kaveri) Private Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

A.No. 224 of 2020 & Ia No. 1995 of 2019 of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (Dhbvn). Versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

A.Nos. 61 of 2021, 62 of 2021, 63 of 2021, 64 of 2021 & a.No. 65 of 2021 of Azure Solar Private Limited. Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Ep No. 13 of 2021 & Ia Nos. 1324 of 2021 & Ia No. 161 of 2022 of Alps Industries Limited. Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.