Dismissed

Apl No 269 of 2017, Apl No 272 of 2017, Apl No 273 of 2017, Apl No 275 of 2017, Apl No 277 of 2017, Apl No 270 of 2017, of Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited & Anr.

APTEL30 Jul 2024APL NO 269 OF 2017, APL NO 272 OF 2017, APL NO 273 OF 2017, APL NO 275 OF 2017, APL NO 277 OF 2017, APL NO 270 OF 2017,

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Tribunal for Electricity dismissed eight appeals filed by obligated entities challenging a Commission order imposing Renewable Energy surcharge. The Tribunal held that amendments replacing obligation tables operate prospectively and do not extinguish the liability accrued under the earlier tables prior to the amendments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Commission affirming the liability of obligated entities to pay Renewable Energy surcharge were upheld.

Apl No 269 of 2017, Apl No 272 of 2017, Apl No 273 of… — Service and Employment | APTEL (2024)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL No.269 OF 2017 APPEAL No.272 OF 2017 APPEAL No.273 OF 2017 APPEAL No.275 OF 2017 APPEAL No.277 OF 2017 APPEAL No.270 OF 2017 APPEAL No.276 OF 2017 AND APPEAL No.285 OF 2017

¶3

Dated: 30.07.2024

¶4

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

APPEAL No. 269 OF 2017

¶7

Birla Corporation Ltd. (Unit: Chanderia Cement Works), Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) Pin-312021 … Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶10

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] … Respondents

¶11

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 1 of 42_

¶12

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶13

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶14

APPEAL No. 272 OF 2017

¶15

Ultratech Cement Limited

¶16

(Unit: Aditya Cement Works), Adityapuram, Distt. Chittorgarh-312622 (Rajasthan)

¶17

… Appellant

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶20

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] … Respondents

¶21

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶22

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶23

APPEAL No. 273 OF 2017

¶24

Mangalam Cement Limited Morak, Dist. Kota (Raj.) Pin – 326 520 … Appellant

¶25

Versus

¶26

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 2 of 42_

¶27

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶28

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected]

¶29

… Respondents

¶30

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari

¶31

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) :

¶32

Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶33

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶34

APPEAL No. 275 OF 2017

¶35

1. Suzuki Spinners (Unit-II) (A Unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.) Khari Ka lamba, Distt – Bhilwara

¶36

2. Suzuki Spinners (A Unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.) Vill-Danta Nilawari, Dist – Bhilwara

¶37

3. Suzuki Suitings (A Unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.) Vill-Danta Nilawari, Dist – Bhilwara

¶38

… Appellants

¶39

Versus

¶40

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶41

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 3 of 42_

¶42

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] …Respondents

¶43

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari

¶44

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶45

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶46

APPEAL No. 277 OF 2017

¶47

Ultratech Cement Limited (Unit: Kotputli Cement Works), V & P. O. Mohanpura, Tehsil: Kotputli Dist. Jaipur – 303108 (Rajasthan) … Appellant

¶48

Versus

¶49

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶50

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] … Respondents

¶51

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 4 of 42_

¶52

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari

¶53

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) :

¶54

Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶55

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶56

APPEAL No. 270 OF 2017

¶57

RSWN Limited Mayur Nagar, Village : Lodha, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) Pin- 327001

¶58

… Appellant

¶59

Versus

¶60

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶61

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] … Respondents

¶62

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Susan Mathew for Res. 1

¶63

Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶64

APPEAL No. 276 OF 2017

¶65

JK Tyre & Industries Limited Kankroli, Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.) Pin- 313342 … Appellant

¶66

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 5 of 42_

¶67

Versus

¶68

1. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited E-166, Yudhishthir Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302005 Through its Director (Technical) Email: [email protected]

¶69

2. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission “Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan”, Near State Motor Garage, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302 005 Through its Secretary Email: [email protected] … Respondents

¶70

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : P.N. Bhandari Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Susan Mathew for Res. 1 Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.2

¶71

APPEAL No. 285 OF 2017

¶72

M/s ACC Ltd. (Through its Authorised Signatory) Having its Registered Office at: Cement House 121 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 020 … Appellant

¶73

Versus

¶74

1. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Through its Secretary) Vidyut Vinyamak Bhawan Near State Motor Garage Sahakar Marg Jaipur-302 001

¶75

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 6 of 42_

¶76

2. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited (Through its Managing Director E-166, Yudhishthir Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001 … Respondents

¶77

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : S.S. Ahluwalia Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Raj Kumar Mehra Himanshi Andley for Res.1

¶78

Susan Mathew for Res. 2

¶79

J U D G M E N T

¶80

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶81

1. Captive power plants as defined under RERC (CPP) Regulations, 2007 as well as open access consumers as defined under RERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004 in the State of Rajasthan, which are “obligated entities” as per the RERC (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007 have filed this batch of 08 appeals impugning therein the common order dated 23.03.2017 passed by 2^nd respondent Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in petition Nos.839/16 and 840/16 filed by the Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RREC’) (1^st respondent in all appeals except appeal No.285/2017 in which it has been arrayed as respondent No.2) under Section 86(1)(f) and Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 5 of RERC (Renewable Purchase Obligation) Regulations, 2007 as well as Regulations 7 and 9 of RERC (Renewable Energy Certificate and Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations, 2010, seeking directions against the defaulting

¶82

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 7 of 42_

¶83

obligated entities including the appellants herein to pay the Renewable Energy (RE) surcharge for the shortfall in meeting the Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) for the period 23.03.2007 to 22.12.2010.

¶84

2. The 1^st respondent is a state agency duly appointed by the Commission (2^nd respondent) vide order dated 16.06.2010 for ensuring renewable energy obligation compliance as per the Regulations issued by the Commission in this regard from time to time. In the petition no. 839/16 filed before the Commission there were 33 respondents including M/s Birla Corporation Limited (appellant in appeal No.269/2017), M/s RSWM Limited (appellant in appeal No.270/2017), M/s Ultratech Cement Limited Chhattisgarh (appellant in appeal No.272/2017), M/s Ultratech Cement Limited, Jaipur (appellant in appeal No.277/2017), M/s J K Tyres and Industries Limited (appellant in appeal No.276/2017), M/s Mangalam Cement Limited (appellant in appeal No.273/2017), and M/s ACC Limited (appellant in appeal No.285/2017).

¶85

3. In the petition No.840/16 filed by 1^st respondent before the Commission, there were 62 respondents out of which respondent Nos.1 to 60 were obligated entities including M/s Suzuki Spinners (appellant in appeal No.275/2017). Respondent No.61 is the authority to issue NOC to open access consumers and respondent No.62 is the authority to issue clearance certificate to captive power plants.

¶86

4. Even though, the impugned order passed by the Commission is against all the 95 obligated entities arrayed as respondents in both the petitions, only 08 of them have come in appeal before us.

¶87

5. The brief facts and circumstances leading to filing of these appeals are encapsulated hereunder: -

¶88

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 8 of 42_

¶89

i) To give effect to the objects and purpose of Section 86 (1) (e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Commission has framed and notified the RERC (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “RPO Regulations, 2007”) applicable on the electricity drawn from the Captive Power Plants and through Open Access.

¶90

ii) RPO Regulations, 2007 imposed liability on the end users to buy minimum percentage of renewable energy. These regulations are applicable to (1) the Distribution licensees including deemed licensees, (2) Open Access Consumers and (3) Captive Power Plants of installed capacity of 1 MW and above.

¶91

iii) The Commission, vide Regulation 4(2) of these RPO Regulations, 2007 had prescribed the RPO liability for Captive Power Plants and Open Access Consumers in the following percentage of the total energy consumed or drawn:

¶92

Sr. No.	Year	Renewable Purchase Obligation
1.	2007-2008	4.88%
2.	2008-2009	6.25%
3.	2009-2010	7.45%
4.	2010-2011	8.50%
5.	2011-2012	9.50%

¶93

iv) Regulations 5 of these Regulations of 2007 reads as follows:

¶94

“5. Payment of Renewable Energy Surcharge for shortfall in Obligation (1) Any shortfall to meet the RE obligation shall be subject to payment of RE Surcharge by the distribution licensee, open access consumer and Captive Power Plant. The payment of renewable energy

¶95

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 9 of 42_

¶96

surcharge shall be made to State transmission utility (STU). (2) The surcharge collected by STU will be credited to a fund to be utilized for creation of transmission system infrastructure of Renewable Energy power plants. (3) RE surcharge will be as notified by the Commission from time to time. For the year 2007-08 the RE surcharge shall be Rs.3.59/KWh and shall continue until revised."

¶97

v) RE surcharge, as prescribed above, continued to be Rs. 3.59/KWh till 22.12.2010 i.e. till the Regulation 5 of RPO Regulations, 2007 was repealed by the RERC (Renewable Energy Certificate and Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred as “RPO Compliance Regulations, 2010”).

¶98

vi) Pursuant to the provisions of the CERC (Terms and conditions for recognition and issuance of Renewable Energy Certificate for Renewable Energy Generation) Regulation, 2010, this Commission framed the RERC (Renewable Energy Certificate and Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations of 2010 which enlarged the scope of “Purchase of Renewable Energy”. Further vide RPO Compliance Regulations, 2010 the Renewable Energy Certificates issued under the CERC (Terms and Conditions for recognition and issuance of Renewable Energy Certificate for Renewable energy Generation) Regulations, 2010 were brought within the ambit of “Purchase of Renewable Energy” for discharge of the mandatory Renewable Purchase Obligations.

¶99

¶100

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 10 of 42

¶101

vii) As per these Regulations, a fiction has been created whereby one REC is issued to the RE generator for every 1 MWh of energy injected from the renewable energy sources into the grid or consumed by a Captive Power Plant. The Certificates were held as valid instrument for meeting the Renewable Purchase Obligation. The RE Generators therefore, can (1) sell the total electricity generated to the Distribution Companies or any Open Access Customers by signing PPAs or use it for its captive use, and also (2) trade/sell the Renewable Energy Certificate in the Power Exchange at an amount between the Floor Price and Forbearance Price as specified by the Central Commission at the relevant time.

¶102

viii) The RPO Regulations, 2007 were amended vide RERC (Renewable Energy Obligation) (1^st Amendment) Regulations, 2011. The table existing below Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 was replaced by the following table:-

¶103

“

¶104

S.No.	Year	Obligation expressed as percentage of energy consumption (%)
1	2011-12	6.00
2	2012-13	7.10
3	2013-14	8.20
		”

¶105

ix) Thereafter the Regulations were further amended in the year 2014 by way of RERC (Renewable Energy Obligation) (2^nd Amendment) Regulations, 2014. By way of this amendment, the table existing below Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 was replaced by the following two tables: -

¶106

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 11 of 42_

¶107

“( A) CPP & OA Consumers with total capacity of 10 MW & above:

¶108

S.No.	Year	Obligation of energy c	expressed as onsumption (	percentage %)
		Non-Solar	Solar	Total
1	2014-15	7.50	1.50	9.00
2	2015-16	8.20	2.00	10.20
3	2016-17	8.90	2.50	11.40

¶109

(B ) CPP & OA Consumers with capacity of 1MW and above, but less than 10MW:

¶110

S.No.	Year	Obligation expressed as percentage of energy consumption (%)
1	2014-15	9.00
2	2015-16	10.20
3	2016-17	11.40
		”

¶111

x) The RPO Regulations, 2007 and RPO Compliance Regulations, 2010 were challenged by various captive power plants / obligated entities including some of the respondents in the two petitions No.839/16 and 840/16 before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court vide various writ petitions including DB Civil Writ Petition No.2850/2007 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2012. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the validity of both these Regulations and directed the writ petitioners to purchase minimum energy from renewable sources and to comply with their liability under the energy regulations. The Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 31.08.2012 were dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2015.

¶112

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 12 of 42_

¶113

xi) Meanwhile an OP No.1/2013 was filed by Indian Wind Energy Association & Anr. against the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions before this Tribunal which was disposed off vide order dated 20.04.2015. Following directions, inter alia , were issued to all the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions: -

¶114

“(iv) The State Commission shall give directions regarding, carry forward/review in RPO and consequential order for default of the distribution licensees/other obligated entities as per the RPO Regulations. If the Regulations recognize REC mechanism as a valid instrument to fulfill the RPO, the carry forward/review should be allowed strictly as per the provisions of the Regulations keeping in view of availability of REC…… In case of default in fulfilling of RPO by obligated entity, the penal provision as provided for in the Regulations should be exercised.

¶115

(v) The State Commissions are bound by their Regulations and they must act strictly in terms of their Regulations.”

¶116

xii) After the dismissal of the SLP and in view of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OP No.1/2013, the Commission issued letter dated 28.08.2015 to the 1^st respondent RREC directing it to ensure the RPO compliance by obligated entities in the State of Rajasthan. It was also directed to ensure the RPO compliance with effect from 23.03.2007 i.e. the date of notification of RPO Regulations, 2007 and to impose RE

¶117

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 13 of 42_

¶118

surcharge / RPO charges on the obligated entities who were in shortfall in meeting their respective RPO targets for the period 23.03.2007 to 22.12.2010 and from 23.12.2020 to 31.03.2015. It was further directed by the Commission that in case, any obligated entity still defaulted in meeting RPO targets cumulatively up to Financial Year (FY) 2014-15, RREC shall approach the Commission by way of petition so that penal action may be taken against the defaulting obligated entities.

¶119

xiii) In pursuance of the said letter of the Commission, the 1^st respondent issued demand notices dated 10.09.2015 to all the obligated entities including the appellants herein calling upon them to pay renewable energy surcharge for the shortfall in fulfilling the RPO for the above noted period either by buying renewable energy or RE certificates. Some of the obligated entities made partial compliance of the RE obligations in pursuance to the said demand notices. However, the respondents in the two petitions before the Commission including the appellants herein are stated to have failed to provide details of renewable energy generated so as to assess the shortfall as well as the RE surcharge to be imposed upon them.

¶120

6. It is in these facts and circumstances that the 1^st respondent RREC approached the Commission by way of above noted two petitions bearing No. 839/16 and 840/16 with the following prayers: -

¶121

“(a) Direct the Respondents (839/16) to pay the RE surcharge, for the shortfall in complying the RE

¶122

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 14 of 42_

¶123

Obligations for the period 23.03.2007 to 22.12.2010, as per the Regulations 5 of the Regulations of 2007 within one month from the date of order.

¶124

(b) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 60 (840/16) to pay the RPO charge as per the provisions of Regulations 9 of the RPO Compliance Regulations of 2010 within one month from the date of order.

¶125

(c) Take/impose penal action against the Respondents as per Section 142 of the Electricity Act of 2003.

¶126

(d) Direct Respondent No. 61 of petition 840/16 i.e., SLDC not to issue NOC to the defaulting Open Access Consumers unless proof of compliance of RE Obligation till last financial year is submitted.

¶127

(e) Direct Respondent No. 62 of petition 840/16 i.e., Senior Electrical Inspector not to issue Clearance Certificate to the defaulting Captive Power Plants unless proof of compliance of RE Obligation till last financial year is submitted.”

¶128

7. On behalf of obligated entities, it was contended before the Commission that since the original RPO Regulations, 2007 has undergone several changes subsequently through Commission’s notifications wherein the word “replacement” has been used for substituting the percentage of renewable purchase obligations which indicates that the earlier obligation was given a go by and therefore there was no obligation for these entities to comply with RPO prior to FY 2014-15. It was contended that by replacing the table under Regulation

¶129

¶130

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 15 of 42

¶131

4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 by a fresh table vide 1^st Amendment in 2011 and again by a 2^nd amendment in the year 2014 which mentions about RPO obligations from 2014-15 only, all earlier liabilities were dropped, and therefore, these entities were not required to comply with any RPO prior to the FY 2014-15.

¶132

8. The contentions of the obligated entities including the appellants herein did not find favour with the Commission and accordingly the Commission, vide the impugned order, allowed both the petitions and directed all the obligated entities, who had not fulfilled RPO till then, to comply with the same within a period of two months from the date of the order.

¶133

9. Accordingly, the appellants have come in appeal against the said impugned order of the Commission.

¶134

10. Before us also it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that use of word “replaced” in the 1^st Amended Regulations of 2011 and 2^nd Amended Regulations of 2014 would indicate that the table given in the Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations 2007 stood deleted and in its place fresh table was substituted by way of these two amendments, and therefore, liability cast upon the obligated entities by virtue of the table in Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 stood wiped out. It is submitted that by virtue of 1^st Amendment in the year 2011, the Commission has consciously discarded the target set out earlier vide Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulation 2007 and fresh targets were specified with effect from the date of notification of the amending regulation i.e. 24.05.2011. He further submitted that the targets set by virtue of a fresh table given in the Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations

¶135

¶136

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 16 of 42

¶137

2007 by way of the said 1^st Amendment in 2011 was also consciously discarded / deleted by way of 2^nd amendment in the year 2014 with effect from 30.05.2014. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in view of these amendments in the RPO Regulations, 2007, the liability of the obligated entities to comply with RPO obligations started from FY 2014-15 as per the 2^nd Amendment i.e. with effect from 30.05.2014 only, and therefore, the Commission has erred in directing the appellants to comply with renewable power obligations with effect from 23.03.2007. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel is that as a result of replacement of the table given in Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 by fresh table firstly by way of 1^st Amendment in 2011 and secondly by way of 2^nd Amendment in the year 2014, the said table cease to exist, and therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellants on the basis of the said table. The learned counsel further canvassed that similarly upon notification of the 2^nd Amendment to the RPO Regulations, 2007 in 2014, the table substituted by way of 1^st Amendment in the year 2011 also cease to exist with effect from the date of notification of the 2^nd Amendment i.e. 30.05.2014. Thus, the learned counsel has urged this Tribunal to hold that the appellants are liable to comply with RPO obligations with effect from the date of notification of 2^nd Amendment i.e. 30.05.2014 only and not prior to that date. Learned counsel cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 in support of his submissions.

¶138

11. The submissions of the appellant’s counsel are strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent RREC (2^nd respondent in appeal No.285/2017). The learned counsel supported the impugned order of the Commission in entirety stating that it does not suffer from

¶139

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 17 of 42_

¶140

any legal infirmity. It is argued that replacement of the table in the Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 by way of amendments in the year 2011 and 2014 cannot be taken to mean that the liability under the said table prior to the amendments got wiped out. It is stated that the replaced tables operate with effect from the date of the respective amendments and do not affect the previous liability of the obligated entities under the previous table during the period it was operative prior to the amendments. The learned counsel cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC 60 to buttress his submissions.

¶141

12. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order of the Commission as well as the written submissions filed by the learned counsels.

¶142

13. In view of the above noted rival submissions of the learned counsels, it would be necessary to determine the nature of amendments carried out in RPO Regulations, 2007 by way of amendment in the years 2011 and 2014.

¶143

14. RPO Regulations of 2007 are reproduced hereunder: -

¶144

“NOTIFICATION

¶145

Jaipur, 23 March 2007

¶146

No. RERC/Secy/Reg/ 66 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 86(1) (e) read with section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) after previous publication, the

¶147

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 18 of 42_

¶148

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission makes the following Regulations, namely:

¶149

1. Short title and commencement

¶150

These regulations will be called the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007 and will come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette or 01-04-2007 whichever is later.

¶151

2. Definitions

¶152

Unless the context otherwise requires for the purpose of this part;

¶153

(1) 'Captive Power Plant' or CPP shall have meaning as assigned in RERC (Tariff for CPP) Regulations, 2007 and shall also include stand alone CPP.

¶154

(2) 'Renewable Energy' or 'RE' shall have meaning as assigned in RERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 & shall include cogeneration.

¶155

(3) 'Renewable Energy Surcharge' ('RE Surcharge') means the weighted average rate of renewable energy purchased by the distribution licensee.

¶156

(4) All words and expressions appearing in these regulations shall bear the meaning assigned to them in the following order:

¶157

(a) The RERC (Tariff for CPP) Regulations, 2007.

¶158

(b) The RERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004.

¶159

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 19 of 42_

¶160

(c) The Electricity Act 2003.

¶161

3. Applicability

¶162

These Regulations will be applicable to the following;

¶163

(1) Distribution licensee including deemed licensee;

¶164

(2) Open access consumer;

¶165

(3) Captive Power Plant of installed capacity 1 MW and above.

¶166

4. Renewable Energy Obligation (RE Obligation)

¶167

(1) The RE Obligation shall be applicable on the electricity

¶168

drawn from the CPP and through Open Access.

¶169

(2) RE Obligation for the minimum purchase of RE shall be as under;

¶170

Sr. No.	Year	Obligation expressed as % age of total energy drawn other than from distribution licensee
1	2007-08	4.88%
2	2008-09	6.25%
3	2009-10	7.45%
4	2010-11	8.50%
5	2011-12	9.50%

¶171

(3) The RE Obligation for a distribution licensee including deemed licensee shall be governed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power purchase & procurement process of distribution licensee) Regulations, 2004

¶172

5. Payment of Renewable Energy surcharge for short fall in

¶173

Obligation

¶174

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 20 of 42_

¶175

(1) Any short fall to meet the RE obligation shall be subject to payment of RE surcharge by the distribution licensee, open access consumer and Captive Power Plant. The payment of renewable energy surcharge shall be made to State Transmission Utility (STU).

¶176

(2) The surcharge collected by STU will be credited to a fund to be utilized for creation of transmission system infrastructure of Renewable Energy power plants.

¶177

(3) RE surcharge will be as notified by the Commission from time to time. For the year 2007-08 the RE surcharge shall be Rs. 3.59/kwh and shall continue until revised.

¶178

Secretary”

¶179

15. The amending Regulations of the year 2011 are as under: -

¶180

“RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY

¶181

COMMISSION

¶182

NOTIFICATION

¶183

JAIPUR, 24^th MAY, 2011

¶184

No.RERC/Secy./Regulation - 86

¶185

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 86(1)(e) of that Act and all powers enabling it in that behalf, the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, after previous publication, hereby makes the following regulations:

¶186

1. Short title and commencement

¶187

¶188

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 21 of 42

¶189

1) These Regulations shall be called the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) (1^st Amendment) Regulations, 2011.

¶190

2) These Regulations shall come into force from date of publication in the State Gazette.

¶191

2. Amendment

¶192

The table existing below regulations 4(2) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007 shall be replaced by the following:

¶193

S.No.	Year	Obligation expressed as percentage of energy consumption (%)
1	2011-12	6.00
2	2012-13	7.10
3	2013-14	8.20

¶194

For the purpose of this sub regulation, energy consumption shall mean ‘consumption of obligated entity’ as defined in regulation 3(g) of RERC (Renewable Energy Certificate and Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations, 2010.

¶195

By Order of the Commission

¶196

(Ashwini Bhagat)

¶197

Secretary”

¶198

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 22 of 42_

¶199

16. The amending Regulations of the year 2014 read as under: -

¶200

“ NOTIFICATION

¶201

Jaipur, May 30, 2014.

¶202

No. RERC/Secy/Regulation-108

¶203

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 86(1)(e) read with section 181 the Electricity Act, 2003 and all powers enabling it in this behalf the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission after previous publication, makes the following Regulations, to amend Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007, namely:

¶204

1. Short title and commencement

¶205

(1) These regulations shall be called the “Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation)(2nd Amendment) Regulations, 2014.”

¶206

(2) These Regulations shall come into force from date of publication in the Official Gazette.

¶207

2. Amendment in regulation 2:

¶208

The existing regulation 2 “Definitions” shall be replaced as under:

¶209

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 23 of 42_

¶210

2 Definitions

¶211

(1) In these regulations unless the context otherwise requires ;

¶212

I. Captive power plants or ‘CPP’ shall have the same meaning as assigned in RERC (CPP) Regulations 2010.

¶213

II. Renewable Energy or ‘RE’ shall have meaning as assigned in RERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulation, 2004 as amended from time to time & shall include cogeneration.

¶214

(2) All words & expressions appearing in these regulations shall bear the same meaning assigned to them in the following order:

¶215

(I) The RERC (CPP) Regulations, 2010

¶216

(II) The RERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulation 2004

¶217

(III) The Electricity Act, 2003.

¶218

3 Amendment in regulation 4:

¶219

The table in existing sub regulations 4(2) shall be replaced by the following:

¶220

(A) CPP & OA Consumers with total capacity of 10 MW & above:

¶221

S.No. Year Obligation expressed as percentage

¶222

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 24 of 42_

¶223

		of energy c	onsumption (	%)
		Non-Solar	Solar	Total
1	2014-15	7.50	1.50	9.00
2	2015-16	8.20	2.00	10.20
3	2016-17	8.90	2.50	11.40

¶224

(B) CPP & OA Consumers with capacity of 1MW and above, but less than 10MW:

¶225

S.No.	Year	Obligation expressed as percentage of energy consumption (%)
1	2014-15	9.00
2	2015-16	10.20
3	2016-17	11.40

¶226

By order (G.K. Sharma) Secretary”

¶227

17. It is manifest that the table given in Regulation 4(2) of the RPO Regulations, 2007 was replaced by fresh table by way of 1^st Amendment in 2011 and then again by way of 2^nd Amendment in the year 2014. The table in the unamended RPO Regulations, 2007 specified the RE obligations from 2007-08 to 2011-12. This was replaced by fresh table in the year 2011 by way of 1^st Amendment which specifies the RE obligations for the obligated entities from the year 2011-12 to 2013-14. Similarly, this table was replaced by a fresh table by way of 2^nd Amendment in the year 2014 which specifies RE obligations for the obligated entities from the year 2014-15 to 2016-17 and came into effect on 24.05.2011. The expression used in both the amending regulations of the year 2011 and 2014 is: -

¶228

¶229

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 25 of 42

¶230

“The table existing below Regulation 4(2) of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007 shall be replaced by the following …”

¶231

18. The language used in the amending regulations very clearly indicates that the table in the Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 was omitted / deleted and was substituted by a fresh table in its place. According to the Oxford dictionary, “replacement” means ‘substitute, oust, succeed, supersede, supplant, take the place of, change’. Therefore, the “replacement” is in no way distinct from “deletion” or “omission” followed by substitution.

¶232

19. The Supreme Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 1 has held that substitution of a provision in an enactment results in repeal of the earlier provision. It would be useful to reproduce following observation of the Hon'ble court in this regard: -

¶233

“25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid., p. 565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P., State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael. In West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. case a threeJudge Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the

¶234

¶235

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 26 of 42

¶236

old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centring around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case a three-Judge bench of this Court emphasised the distinction between “supersession” of a rule and “substitution” of a rule and held that process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place.”

¶237

(Emphasis supplied)

¶238

20. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2015) 10 SCC 333 that an omission would amount “repeal” for the purposes of the application of Sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act. It has been stated in the said judgment that since the same expression namely “repeal” is used both in Section 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, the construction of the said expression in both the Sections would, therefore, include within it “omission” made by the Legislature.

¶239

¶240

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 27 of 42

¶241

21. Explaining the concept further, the same bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent case reported as Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Excise & Anr. 2016 3 SCC 643 has held as under:-

¶242

“11. First and foremost, it is important to refer to the definition of “enactment” contained in Section 3 (19) of the General Clauses Act. The said definition clause states that “enactment” shall mean the following:

¶243

“3. (19) 'enactment' shall include a Regulation (as hereinafter defined) and any Regulation of the Bengal, Madras or Bombay Code, and shall also include any provision contained in any Act or in any such Regulation as aforesaid.”

¶244

12. From this it is clear that when Section 6 of the General Clauses Act speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, it is clear, as has been stated by referring to a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England in Fibre Board judgment, that expression “omission” is nothing but a particular from of words evincing an intention to abrogate an enactment or portion thereof. This is made further clear by the Legal Thesaurus (Delux Edition) by William C. Burton, 1987 Edition. The expression “delete” is defined by the Theasurus as follows:

¶245

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 28 of 42_

¶246

“Delete: Blot out, cancel, censor, cross off, cross out, cut, cut out, dele, discard, do away with, drop, edit out, efface, elide, eliminate, eradicate, erase, excise, expel, expunge, extirpate, get rid of, leave out, modify by excision, obliterate, omit, remove, rub out, rule out, scartch out, strike off, take out, weed, wipe out.

¶247

Likewise the expression “omit” is also defined by the Theasururs as follows:

¶248

“Omit:-Abstain from inserting, bypass, cast aside, count out, cut out, delete, discard, dodge, drop, exclude, fail to do, fail to include, fail to insert, fail to mention, leave out, leave undone, let go, let pass, let slip, miss. Neglect, omittere, passover, praetermittere, skip, slight, transire.” And the expression “repeal” is defined as follows:

¶249

“Repeal:- Abolish, abrogare, abrogate, annual, avoid, cancel, countermand, declare null and void, delete, eliminate, formally withdraw, invalidate, make void negate, nullify, obliterate, officially withdraw, override, overrule, quash, recall, render invalid, rescind, rescindere, retract, reverse, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw.”

¶250

13. On a conjoint reading of the three expression “delete”, “omit”, and “repeal”, it becomes clear that “delete” and “omit” are used interchangeably, so that when the expression “repeal” refers to “delete” it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This

¶251

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 29 of 42_

¶252

being the case, we do not find any substance in the argument that a “repeal” amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an “omission” is only in futuro. If the expression “delete” would amount to a “repeal”, which the appellant's counsel does not deny, it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury's Laws of England and the Legal Theasurus cited hereinabove both lead to the same result, namely, that an “omission” being tantamount to a “deletion” is a form of repeal.

¶253

14. The learned counsel's second argument that Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act when it speaks of an “omission” only speaks of an “enactment” which omits and, therefore does not refer to a repeal, is equally fallacious. In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India, this Court held that there is no real distinction between a repeal and an amendment and that “amendment” is in fact a wider term which includes deletion of a provision in an existing statute. In the said judgment, this Court held: ( SCC pp. 40-41, paras 17-18).

¶254

“17. It is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an amending law, that an existing provision shall be deleted and a existing provision. Such a law may also provide for the introduction of a new provision. There is no real distinction between “repeal” and an “amendment”. In Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol. 1 at p. 477, the learned author makes the following statement of law:

¶255

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 30 of 42_

¶256

'The distinction between repeal and amendment as these terms are used by the courts, is arbitrary. Naturally, the use of these terms by the court is based largely on how the legislatures have developed and applied these terms in labelling their enactment. When a Section is being added to an Act or a provision added to a section, the legislatures commonly entitled the Act as an amendment....... When a provision is withdrawn from a section, the legislatures call the Act an amendment particularly when a provision is added to replace the one withdrawn. However, when an entire Act or section is abrogate and no new section is added to replace it, legislatures label the Act accomplishing this result a repeal. Thus as used by the legislatures, amendment and repeal may differ in kind – addition as opposed to withdrawal or only in degree – abrogation of part of a section as opposed to abrogation of a whole section or Act; or more commonly, in both kind and degree – addition of a provision to a section to replace a provision being abrogated as opposed by abrogation of a whole section of an Act. This arbitrary distinction has been followed by the courts, and they have recognised that frequently an Act purporting to be an amendment has the same qualitative effect as a repeal – the abrogation of an existing statutory provision – and have therefore, applied the term “implied repeal” and the rules of construction applicable to repeal to such amendments.'

¶257

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 31 of 42_

¶258

18. Amendment is, in fact, a wider term and it includes abrogation or deletion of a provision in an existing statute. If the amendment of an existing law is small, the Act professes to amend; if it is extensive, it repeals a law and reenacts it. An amendment of substantive law is not retrospective unless expressly laid down or by necessary implication inferred.”

¶259

(Emphasis supplied)

¶260

22. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that even if the amending Regulations of 2011 and 2014 did not specifically used the word “repeal” or “delete” anywhere, omission / deletion of the table in Regulation 4(2) of unamended Regulation, 2007 can be termed as implied repeal of the said table. Further, it is not necessary that the whole enactment / regulation should be repealed, only one or more provisions in an enactment / regulation may also be repealed.

¶261

23. At this stage we find it advantageous to refer to Section 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which are reproduced hereunder:-

¶262

“6. Effect of repeal . - Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not –

¶263

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

¶264

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 32 of 42_

¶265

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

¶266

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

¶267

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

¶268

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid,

¶269

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.

¶270

24. Continuation of orders, etc., issued under enactment repealed and re-enacted . - Where any (Central Act) or Regulation, is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed and reenacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided any (appointment notification) order, scheme,

¶271

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 33 of 42_

¶272

rule, form or bye-law, (made or) issued under the repealed Act or Regulation, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been (made or) issued under the provisions so reenacted, unless and until it is superseded by any (appointment notification,) order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, (made or) issued under the provisions so re-enacted [and when any (Central Act) or Regulation, which, by a notification under section 5 of 56A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn from the re-extended to such area or any part thereof, the provisions of such Act or Regulation shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such are or part within the meaning of this section].”

¶273

24. From the plain reading of the above noted legal provisions, it is manifest that the repeal of an enactment / regulation or any provision thereof is prospective in operation unless the legislative intent appears otherwise. The expression “unless a different intention appears” appearing in the Section 6 is of very importance. It connotes that unless a different intention appears in the amending Act / regulation which repeals an enactment / regulation or a provision thereof, the repeal will not affect any liability incurred or a remedy in respect of a right acquired under the repealed provision of law. However, if a different intention can be discerned from the amending Act, such intention shall have overriding effect.

¶274

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 34 of 42_

¶275

25. The Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel judgment (supra) has referred to the definition of “enactment” contained in Section3(19) of General Clauses Act to explain that this expression includes a regulation.

¶276

26. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs. Venketeswara Hatchers (P) Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 632, was concerned with an Amendment in Income Tax Act 1961 through the Finance Act 1975 which omitted Section 10 (27) granting exemption from income tax on income from poultry business and re-enacted Section 80 JJ providing the exemption of only 1/3rd of gross of total income from livestock and poultry and dairy firm. It was held in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment as under:-

¶277

“12. As noticed earlier, the omission of Section 2 (27) and re-enactment of Section 80 JJ was done simultaneously. It is a very well-recognized rule of interpretation of statute that where a provision of an Act is omitted by an Amending Act and said Act simultaneously re-enacts a new provision which substantially covers the field occupied by the repealed provision with certain modification, in that event such reenactment is regarded having force continuously and the modification or changes are treated as amendment coming into force with effect from the date of enforcement of the re-enacted provision. Viewed in this background, the effect of the reenacted provision of Section 80 JJ was that profit from the business of livestock and poultry which enjoyed total exemption

¶278

¶279

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 35 of 42

¶280

under Section 10 (27) of the Act from Assessment Years 1964-654 to 1975-76 became partially exempt by way of deduction of fulfillment of certain conditions.”

¶281

(Emphasis supplied)

¶282

27. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602, the Supreme Court was considering amendments to TADA Act and had culled out legal principles relevant to determining the legislative intention as to whether a law is prospective or retrospective. These principles are contained in Paragraph No. 26 of the report and are reproduced herein below: -

¶283

“26. The Designated Court has held that the amendment would operate retrospectively and would apply to the pending cases in which investigation was not complete on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force and the challan had not till then been filed in the court. From the law settled by this Court in various cases the illustrative though not exhaustive principles which emerges with regard to the ambit and scope of an Amending Act and its retrospective operation may be culled out as follows:-

¶284

(i) A statute which affects substantive right is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its

¶285

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 36 of 42_

¶286

application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined.

¶287

(ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.

¶288

(iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law.

¶289

(iv) A procedural statute should not, generally speaking, be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.

¶290

(v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.”

¶291

(Emphasis supplied)

¶292

28. In T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe & Another (1983) 1 SCC 177, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of Section 6 of General Clauses Act and has observed:

¶293

“18. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act though it has been specifically mentioned in the repealing Act or not, will follow, unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears. In State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, this Court has elaborately dealt

¶294

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 37 of 42_

¶295

with the effect of repeal. In the case of a simple repeal, there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject, the court would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. “The line of inquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities”, in the words of Mukherjea. J., “but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.” The Court held that it cannot subscribe to be broad proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new Act and the mere absence of a saving clause is not by itself material. The Court therefore held that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will apply to a case of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment. Of course, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will apply only when a statue or regulation having the force of a statute is actually repealed. It has no application when a statute which is of

¶296

a temporary nature automatically expires by efflux of

¶297

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 38 of 42_

¶298

time. The principles laid down by the Court in Mohar Singh case, have consistently been followed in subsequent cases. The old doctrine of extinguishing or effacing the repealed law for all purposes and intents except for the acts past and closed has now given way to the principles enunciated by the Court in Mohar Singh case.”

¶299

(emphasis supplied)

¶300

29. Thus, in the said case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Mohar Singh’s case has clearly held that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will apply to a case of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new enactment. It is also held that whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow whether or not it has been specifically mentioned in the repealing act / legislation, unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears.

¶301

30. Following principles can be easily culled out from the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments: -

¶302

(a) Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, though it has been specifically mentioned in the repealing Act or not, will follow, unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears.

¶303

¶304

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 39 of 42

¶305

(b) Every new enactment is presumed to be prospective in operation, unless either expressly or by necessary intendment is made retrospective. Amendment in any regulation cannot be given retrospective effect unless legislative intent or expression is clear beyond ambiguity.

¶306

(c) Where a provision of an Act is omitted by an amending Act and said Act simultaneously reenacts the new provision which substantially covers the field occupied by the repealed provision with certain modification, in that event, such reenactment is regarded having force continuously and the modification or changes are treated as amendment coming into force with effect from the date of enforcement of the re-enacted provision.

¶307

31. Coming to the instant case, it nowhere appears from the perusal of amending Regulations of 2011 and 2014 that the Commission intended to wipe out the liability of obligated entities to comply with RE obligations as specified in the table in Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007. A meaningful reading of these amending Regulations conveys that the intention of the Commission was to revise the percentage of minimum purchase of RE, and therefore, the table contained in unamended Regulations of 2007 was replaced by fresh table firstly in 2011 and then in 2014. It is clear from the legal principles discernible from the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the replacement of the table by way of amendments has only prospective operation and

¶308

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 40 of 42_

¶309

do not affect the liability of the obligated entities prior to the amendments as per the table given in Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007. There is nothing in these amending Regulations of 2011 and 2014 to suggest that the liability cast upon obligated entities by way of table in unamended Regulations of 2007 cease to exist upon notification of these amending Regulations.

¶310

32. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PTC India case cited by the appellant’s counsel do not advance the case of the appellants at all. In that case also, it has been held that the substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. It nowhere says that upon substitution by a new provision, the earlier provision completely ceases to have effect even prior to its substitution by a new provision.

¶311

33. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, we clarify and hold that the table given in Regulation 4(2) of RPO Regulations, 2007 held the field and was operating till notification of the 1^st Amendment to the Regulations on 24.05.2011 whereby the table was replaced by a fresh table. Similarly, the fresh table inserted in the said Regulation 4(2) in 2011 remained operative till it was replaced by another table by way of 2^nd Amendment with effect from 30.05.2014.

¶312

34. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders of the Commission. The appeals are devoid of any merit and are

¶313

¶314

Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 41 of 42

¶315

hereby dismissed as such. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off.

¶316

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of July, 2024.

¶317

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

¶318

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member (Electricity)

¶319

¶320

____________________________________________________________________ Appeal Nos.269, 272, 273, 275, 277, 270, 276 & 285 of 2017 Page 42 of 42_

Apl No 269 of 2017, Apl No 272 of 2017, Apl No 273 of 2017, Apl No 275 of 2017, Apl No 277 of 2017, Apl No 270 of 2017, of Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apl No 269 of 2017, Apl No 272 of 2017, Apl No 273 of 2017, Apl No 275 of 2017, Apl No 277 of 2017, Apl No 270 of 2017, of Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apl 370 of 2022 of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Versus Prayagraj Power Generation Company Limited & Anr.

Apl No 38 of 2024 & Ia No 115 of 2024 & Ia No 285 of 2024 & Apl No 47 of 2024 & Ia No 180 of 2024 & Ia No 195 of 2024 of Jhabua Power Private Limited Versus Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 116 of 2017 of Sasan Power Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 13 of 2017 of Indian Wind Power Association (Iwpa) Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 78 of 2022 of Jindal India Thermal Power Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl No 37 of 2018, Apl No 88 of 2018 & Ia No 300 of 2018 & Ia No 2268 of 2023, Apl No 102 of 2018, Apl No 129 of 2018, a of Mr. Rama Shanker Awasthi Versus Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.(Uppcl) & Ors.

Apl No 80 of 2024 & Ia No 323 of 2024 of Damodar Valley Corporation Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl No 127 of 2024 & Ia No 62 of 2024 of Cellular Operators Association of India Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl 370 of 2022 of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. Versus Prayagraj Power Generation Company Limited & Anr.

Apl No 13 of 2017 of Indian Wind Power Association (Iwpa) Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 116 of 2017 of Sasan Power Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 78 of 2022 of Jindal India Thermal Power Limited Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Apl No 194 of 2022 of Powergrid Southern Interconnector Transmission System Limited (Psitsl) Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No 341 of 2017 & Ia No 1253 of 2024 of Surat Citizens Council Trust Versus Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.