Allowed

A.No. 28 of 2021 of Merino Industries Limited. v. Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency & Ors.

APTEL5 May 2022A.No. 28 of 2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal granted the appellant liberty to approach the State Commission for a review of an order imposing double distribution losses, requesting the Commission to provide reasoned findings within two months without the Tribunal expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the State Commission by way of a review petition within four weeks to seek a detailed reasoned order.

A.No. 28 of 2021 of Merino Industries Limited. Versus… — Company and Corporate | APTEL (2022)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY NEW DELHI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

¶2

APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2021

¶3

Dated: 05.05.2022

¶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

Merino Industries Limited

¶7

44 KM Stone, Delhi-Rohtak Road, Village Rohad, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana- 124501 Email:[email protected]

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency,

¶11

Through its Director General, AkshayUrja Bhawan, Plot No-1, Sector 17, Opp. Agarwal Bhavan, Panchkula – 134109 Email: [email protected]

¶12

2. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6, Panchkula -134109 Email: [email protected]

¶13

3. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Sadan, Vidyut Nagar, Hisar – 125005 Email: [email protected]

¶14

4. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission,

¶15

Through its Secretary, Bays 33-36, Sector 4, Panchkula – 134112 Email: [email protected]

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Appeal No. 28 of 2021

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Counsel for the Respondent (s) : Mr. Arjun Grover for R-1 Mr. Samir Malik with Ms. Nikita Choukse for R-2 & 3

¶20

J U D G M E N T (Oral)

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

2. The order assailed by the appeal at hand was rendered by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) on 13.05.2019 in Case No.22 of 2019. The appellant is a generator of electricity with a captive generation plant located at district Hissar, a region in the State of Haryana where Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is the distribution licensee. It supplies electricity to certain consumers in district Jhajjar which is part of a separate region of the State of Haryana where Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) is the distribution licensee. Under the extant regulations, it is liable to pay for distribution losses. While passing the impugned order, laying down the procedure/guidelines for banking of renewable solar energy power, the State Commission has stipulated as under:

¶24

“At the end of the month, the total RE power injected during the month, the total RE Power adjusted during the month, RE Power adjusted from the previous banked energy during the month and net banked energy for the month (+ve or -ve) shall be worked out by the Commercial wing of UHBVNL/ Sr. A.O./Open Access of DHBVN from the time slot wise energy statement prepared by SLDC, Haryana with the downloaded meter data. The Banked Energy shall be calculated at the end of a month by the Commercial wing of UHBVN/ Sr. A.O./Open Access of DHBVN as follows:-

¶25

Banked Energy at the end of month (Ebi) = {Eg(1-losses)-Ec}*(1-b) + Eb (i-1) where

¶26

* Eg = Energy injected for the ith month * Ec = Energy consumption for the ith month * Eb (i-1) = Energy banked at the end of previous month *b = Banking charges in kind as specified by HERC from time to time

¶27

Losses are the transmission losses and distribution losses (Technical) as approved by the HERC in its Tariff Order for the relevant financial year.

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

Appeal No. 28 of 2021

¶30

The methodology is hereby illustrated with an example as under:

¶31

*Solar power i* *(Eg)*	*njected*	*Transmis* *sion* *losses @* *2.46% as* *per HERC* *Order* *dated* *15.11.201* 8	*Distribution* *(technical)* *losses* *@5.87% as* *per HERC* *Order dated* *15.11.2018*	*Solar* *power at* *consumer* *end* *(Eg(1-* *losses))*	*Energy* *consum* *ption* *assume* d Ec	*Banking* *charges* *@ 5%* *(b)*
	kWh	kWh	kWh	kWh	kWh	kWh
Case 1: Generator and consumer both connected to 66kV and above	100,000	2460	NA	97540	70,000	1377
Case 2: One of the Generator / Consumer is connected at 66kV and other is connected at 33 kV in same utility	100,000	2460	5726	91814	70,000	1091
Case 3: Generator is connected to 11/33 kV in UHBVN and consumer is connected to 11/33 kV in DHBVN or vice versa	100,000	2460	11451	86089	70,000	804 ”

¶32

3. The case of the appellant falls in scenario 3 (Case No.3) in the above table wherein it is located in the area of one distribution licensee and its consumer is located in the area of other distribution licensee operating in the State. Its grievance is that there is no logic or justification for the distribution losses to be recovered twice over from it for use of the transmission network of the two licensees.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Appeal No. 28 of 2021

¶35

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the State Commission not participating despite notice, we find that the impugned order is devoid of any expression of reason or justification for such dispensation as is the cause of the grievance agitated in the appeal at hand.

¶36

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would be satisfied if they are given liberty to approach the State Commission by invoking its review jurisdiction so that its contentions against such dispensation as above may be heard and the Commission spells out its reasons for the final determination that it chooses to adopt on the subject.

¶37

6. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, we grant the request, we give liberty to the appellant to approach the State Commission by review petition within four weeks hereof, to seek a detailed reasoned order on the specific issue mentioned above. Needless to add, the Commission will be obliged to hear all stakeholders while hearing the appellant on the subject and shall pass the order dealing with the contentions that are raised before it, in accordance with law.

¶38

7. Needless also to add that the Commission will approach the Review Petition with an open mind not feeling bound by the determination which is being questioned. Given the financial impact that the questioned determination creates for the appellant, and possibly similarly placed other entities, it is desirable that the decision on the review petition proposed to be submitted by the appellant is taken by the Commission expeditiously which we request it to do preferably within two months of the submissions of the review petition.

¶39

8. While disposing of the appeal with such liberty having been granted, we clarify that nothing said in this judgment will be construed as any expression of opinion by this Tribunal.

¶40

9. The appeal is disposed in of above terms.

¶41

PRONOUNCED IN THE VIRTUAL COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ON THIS 05^th DAY OF MAY, 2022.

¶42

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) (Justice R.K. Gauba) Technical Member Officiating Chairperson

¶43

pr/tp

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

Appeal No. 28 of 2021

A.No. 28 of 2021 of Merino Industries Limited. v. Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.No. 28 of 2021 of Merino Industries Limited. v. Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency & 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

Similar cases

A.No. 381 of 2018 of Cogeneration Association of India. Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

A.No. 133 of 2019 of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited. Versus Apraava Energy Private Limited & Anr.

A.Nos. 264 of 2014, a.No. 173 of 2015 and a.No. 277 of 2015 of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Versus Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

A.No. 57 of 2022 & a.No. 49 of 2022 of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl) & Ors. Versus M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited (Blmcl) & Ors.

A.No. 52 of 2020 of M/s Gem Sugars Limited. Versus Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited & Anr.

A.No. 72 of 2016 & a.No. 100 of 2016 of Jindal Steel & Power Limited. Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.