7. Per contra, the impugned order is defending in all respects on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. Its counsel has based his arguments on clause 29(1) of RERC tariff Regulations of 2014 stating that the tax on return on equity is to be recovered from the beneficiaries only who are basically the distribution licensees having long-term open access. He argued that though the definition of term ‘Beneficiary’ in the tariff Regulations, 2014 is very concise, same has been explained/expanded in clause 10 of the subsequent RERC tariff Regulations of 2019 and on combined reading of both the clauses, it is clear that the intention of the Commission was never to recover the tax on return on equity from an entity other than a distribution licensee. He submitted that in the instant case, the 2nd Respondent is only availing mid-term open access for wheeling of power from its captive power plant and, therefore, cannot be treated as a beneficiary. According to him, the distribution licensee alone is the beneficiary in the instant case and, therefore, no legal infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Commission. So far as the filing of petition under Section 142 of the Electricity Act is concerned, the Learned Counsel submitted that this legal provision can be invoked in the cases of non-compliance of the provisions of the RERC Regulations also by anybody and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petition filed by the 2nd Respondent was not maintainable. To buttress his submission on this aspect, the Learned Counsel relied upon
