Partly allowed

Appeal No.109 of 2022 of Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Up Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

APTEL7 Aug 2025APPEAL No.109 OF 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought compensation for change in law costs. Tribunal rejected new claims regarding captive coal introduced late but allowed compensation for GST increase on O&M and fly ash disposal costs, remitting computation to the Commission.

What did the court decide?

Application to raise new claims on captive coal rejected. Commission directed to allow compensation for increase in GST on O&M and fly ash disposal costs.

Appeal No.109 of 2022 of Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd. versus Chairman, Up Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. — APTEL (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL No.109 OF 2022

¶3

Dated: 07.08.2025

¶4

Present: Honble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Honble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd & 3^rd Floor 14/45 DR. Giriappa Road T-Nagar, Chennai - 600017 …Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Chairman, UP Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg Lucknow UP:-226001 (U.P.) Email: [email protected]

¶9

2. Managing Director, MVVNL 4A, Gokhale Marg, Lucknow UP:- 226001 (U.P.) Email: [email protected]

¶10

3. Managing Director, PVVNL

¶11

Urja Bhawan Victoria Park MD Camp Office Meerut:- 250001 (U.P.) Email: [email protected]

¶12

4. Managing Director, PUVVNL

¶13

DLW Bhikaripur Varanasi:- 221004 (U.P.) Email: [email protected]

¶14

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 1 of 48_

¶15

Page 1 of 48

¶16

5. Managing Director, DVVNL Urja Bhawan, NH-2 Sikandar:- 282007 Email:- [email protected]

¶17

6. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Vidyut Niyamak Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226010 Email:- [email protected] …Respondents

¶18

Counsel of the Appellant(s) : Sajan Poovayya Sr. Adv. Hemant Singh Mridul Chakravarty Biju Mattam Supriya Rastogi Agarwal Chetan Kumar Garg Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal Ankita Bafna Harshit Singh Alchi Thapliyal Lavanya Panwar Robin Kumar Sindhuja Rastogi Counsel of the Respondent(s) : Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. Shankh Sengupta Abhishek Kumar Nived Veerapaneni Karan Arora Shubham Mudgil Kartikeya Yadav Sujoy Sur Vedant Kumar for Res. 1 to 5

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶21

1. The appellant M/s RKM Powergen Private Limited is aggrieved by the

¶22

order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the 6^th respondent Uttar Pradesh

¶23

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 2 of 48_

¶24

Page 2 of 48

¶25

Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in petition no.1365/2018 thereby considering some of the events pleaded by the appellant in the petition as Change in Law (CIL) in terms of Article 10 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 15.03.2016 executed between the appellant and the respondent nos.1 to 4 whereas rejecting the claim of the appellant with regards to certain other events.

¶26

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise of the instant appeal are stated briefly hereinbelow.

¶27

3. A coalfired thermal power plant with capacity of 1440MW comprising of four units with generating capacities of 360MW each is owned and operated by the appellant as a joint venture with Mudajaya Corporation Berhad, Malaysia. The power plant is located at Uchpinda, State of Chhattisgarh. Unit-1 of the power plant has been commissioned on 27.11.2015.

¶28

4. The 1^st respondent Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (in short “UPPCL”) is the nodal agency/authorized representative for the respondent nos.2 to 5 which are UP Discoms. The respondent nos.2 to 5 have different allocations of power from the appellant’s power plant under the PPA.

¶29

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 3 of 48_

¶30

Page 3 of 48

¶31

Respondent no.3 is the lead procurer and authorized to act for and on behalf of other procurers i.e. respondent nos.2, 4 & 5.

¶32

5. In the year 2012, the 1^st respondent UPPCL initiated a bid process for procurement of 6000MW power under Case-1 of the bidding guidelines issued under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, Request for Proposal was issued on 27.07.2012.

¶33

6. The appellant submitted its bid on 21.09.2012 for supply of 350MW power at a levelized tariff of Rs.5.088/kWh for a period of 25 years. In the bid, the appellant mentioned two sources for procurement of fuel namely South East Coal Fields Limited and Captive Coal Block being Fatehpur East in Mond-Raigarh area.

¶34

7. Based on the evaluation of non-financial bids, financial bids and the recommendations of the Bid Evaluation Committee as well as Energy Taskforce of Government of Uttar Pradesh, Letters of Intent (LOIs) were issued by the 1^st respondent UPPCL to first seven successful bidders including the appellant, which had emerged as L-4 amongst the successful bidders.

¶35

8. On 23.05.2013, the appellant informed the UPPCL about the

¶36

uncertainty of the availability of the captive coal block as a source of coal for

¶37

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 4 of 48_

¶38

Page 4 of 48

¶39

the power plant on account of some CBI inquiry. The appellant requested UPPCL to evaluate the bid on the basis of linkage coal source only. In its response dated 07.06.2013, UPPCL stated that the appellant has to accept the LOI unconditionally for the reason that the bid has been evaluated on coal block basis. Appellant was further informed that any deviation will attract the provisions of clause 2.19 of Request for Proposal (RFP) pertaining to fraudulent and corrupt practices.

¶40

9. Later on, the LOI issued to appellant was cancelled by UPPCL on

¶41

10.12.2013 on the ground of non-responsiveness of appellant.

¶42

10. It appears that the appellant challenged the cancellation of LOI dated 22.05.2013 issued to it before the Commission by way of petition no.946/2014. It further appears that some talks had taken place between the appellant and UPPCL during the pendency of that petition wherein UPPCL had agreed to consider restoration of LOI in case the appellant withdraws the said petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Commission on 28.09.2015. Thereafter, UPPCL sent a letter dated 02.11.2015 to the appellant asking the appellant to submit an undertaking. The relevant portion of the letter is extracted hereinbelow: -

¶43

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 5 of 48_

¶44

Page 5 of 48

¶45

“… In view of the above, I have been directed to request M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. to submit an undertaking that M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. is committed to supply its quoted quantum of 350MW from its 4x360MW thermal power plant in Distt. Jangir Champa, Chattisgarh whereby M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. had quoted levelised tariff of Rs. 5.088/unit from fuel source captive coal mine (Fatehpur East) and stands committed to supply the above quantum from same generation source from alternative coal linkage fuel source at its quoted tariff (i.e. Its year on year tariff stream as well as all other applicable parameters taken collectively for the purpose of evaluation on the basis of which it has been evaluated as L4 bidder) as per M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. offer by way of RFP Bid submitted on 21-09-2012 against the Request for Proposal document dated 27-07-2012 issued to M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd. by UPPCL …. ”

¶46

11. The requisite undertaking was duly submitted by the appellant vide communication dated 05.11.2015. Accordingly, the appellant’s LOI was restored by UPPCL. The restoration of LOI to appellant was also approved

¶47

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 6 of 48_

¶48

Page 6 of 48

¶49

by the Commission vide order dated 11.02.2016 passed in the petition no.1078/2015.

¶50

12. Thereafter, PPA dated 15.03.2016 was executed between appellant and the UP discoms i.e. respondent nos.2 to 5 with regards to the quantum of 350MW of power to be generated from Unit-1 of the appellant’s thermal power plant at levelized tariff of Rs.5.088 per unit. The PPA mentions the scheduled delivery date as 30.06.2016 extending up to 25 years.

¶51

13. The tariff quoted in the PPA was adopted by the Commission on

¶52

01.02.2017 in terms of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶53

14. The appellant issued two Change in Law notices to the 1^st respondent UPPCL on 26.12.2017 and 28.06.2018. A separate notice dated 01.09.2018 was issued in this regard by the appellant to the procurers i.e. respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶54

15. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Commission by way of petition no.1365/2018 under Section 86(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Article 10 of the PPA dated 15.03.2016 and clause 4.7 of the Guidelines for Determination of Tariff by Bid Process for Procurement of Power by the Distribution Licensee (in short “competitive bid guidelines”) seeking a declaration that the events enumerated in the petition constitute “Change in

¶55

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 7 of 48_

¶56

Page 7 of 48

¶57

Law”, compensation in respect thereof and for prescribing mechanism for computing the compensation payable and its recovery for both past period as well as the future period.

¶58

16. The Change in Law events specified by the appellant in the petition were as under: -

¶59

“

¶60

*S. No.*	*Change in Law* *Claim* DURING C	*Basis for Change in Law Claim* ONSTRUCTION
1.	New	The Chhattisgarh Environment
	Environmental	Conservation Board (the
	Norms.	*“CECB”*) issued a renewal of its consent under section 21 of Air
		(Prevention and Control of
		Pollution) Act 1981 dated
		6.10.2016 stipulating a new requirement for the installation of a High Concentration Slurry
	DURING	Disposal System (“*HSCD* *System*”). OPERATIONS
2.	Increase in the	The increase in the cost of coal
	cost of G11 Grade Coal by	from Rs. 730/MT in 2012 to Rs.

¶61

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 8 of 48_

¶62

Page 8 of 48

¶63

Coal India	810/MT in 2016 has increased the
Limited (“*CIL*”)	following costs up to Nov 2017:
vide notification dated 29.5.2016.	(a) Increase in coal cost due to the
	Mines and Minerals
	Development Charges @ 2% of royalty payable and District Mineral Foundation charges
	@ 30% of royalty payable vide CIL’s notification (1936) dated 14.11.2015. (b) Increase in coal sizing charges
	for 100MM size from Rs.
	77/MT in 2012 to Rs. 79/MT in 2013 vide CIL’s notification (2784) dated 16.12.2013.
	(c) Increase in coal transfer to siding charges (up to 10KM)
	from Rs. 44/MT in 2012 to Rs.
	59/MT in 2013 vide CIL’s
	notification (2340) dated
	13.11.2013.
	(d) Increase in CG Paryavaran
	and Vikas Upkar Tax from 5%
	in 2012 to 7.5% in 2015 vide

¶64

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 9 of 48_

¶65

Page 9 of 48

¶66

	CIL’s notification (1420) dated 19.8.2015.
	(e) Increase in Central Excise Duty from 5% in 2012 to 6% in 2015 vide CIL’s notification (1420) dated 19.8.2015.
	(f) Increase in Clean
	Environmental Cess from Rs. 50/MT to Rs. 400/MT in 2016 vide CIL’s notification (440) dated 29.2.2016.
	(g) Increase in ROM price in 2018
	vide CIL’s notification
	(CIL:M&S/GM(F): Pricing) dated 8.1.2018.
	(h) Increase in busy season
	surcharge from 12% in 2012
	to 15% in 2013 vide Ministry
	of Railways notification
	(TCR/1078/2008/11) dated 18.9.2013.
Increase in the	The increase in the cost of coal
cost of G11	from Rs. 810/MT in 2012 to Rs.
Grade Coal by	955/MT in Jan 2018 has

¶67

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 10 of 48_

¶68

Page 10 of 48

¶69

Coal India	increased the following costs
Limited (“*CIL*”)	From Jan 2018:
vide notification dated	(a) Increase in coal cost due to the
08.01.2018.	Mines and Minerals Development Charges @ 2% of royalty payable and District Mineral Foundation Charges
	@ 30% of royalty payable
	vide CIL’s notification (1936) dated 14.11.2015. (b) Increase in coal sizing charges
	for 100MM size from Rs.
	79/MT in 2016 to Rs.87/MT in
	2018 vide South Eastern
	Coalfields Limited’s Mine
	wise price indicator dated
	09.01.2018.
	(c) Increase in coal transfer to
	siding charges (up to 10KM)
	from Rs. 57/MT in 2016 to
	Rs.87/MT in 2016 vide South
	Eastern Coalfields Limited’s
	Mine wise price indicator
	dated 09.01.2018.

¶70

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 11 of 48_

¶71

Page 11 of 48

¶72

		(d)Introduction of Evacuation
		facility charges vide CIL’s
		notification (1005) dated 19.12.2017.
3.	Increase in the cost of coal due	The new coal distribution policy was amended vide an office
	to new coal distribution policy.	memorandum (F. No. 23011/90/2013-CPD) dated 26.7.2013 issued by the Ministry of Coal, fuel supply agreements would be executed for 75% of the ACQ for the remaining years of the 12 plan.
		Ministry of Coal Notification 23011/85/2011-CPD dated 17.02.2012 had fixed ACQ in FSA for category B projects at 90%
		trigger level. As such the Petitioner is being supplied only 57% (0.900.850.75) of FSA coal. The Petitioner has to source the
		remaining 43% of its coal
		requirement from E-Auction and other sources where coal is

¶73

Page 12 of 48

¶74

Appeal No.109 of 2022

¶75

			offered at a premium of 20% over the CIL notified price though the actual premium while bidding is much higher. CERC has vide order in Petition 1/MP/2017 has issued formulation for mitigation of increase in cost due coal shortage.
4.	Reduction indirect tax coal due	of on to	On account of introduction of GST on 3.7.2017, the previous regime of excise duty of 6% and value
	introduction GST.	of	added tax of 5% has been reduced to 5% GST.
5.	Increase Central Ex Duty and Va Added Tax	in cise lue on	Under the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell notification dated 5.7.2017, the central excise duty on diesel has increased from
	diesel.		Rs.3.46/litre in 2012 in Rs.17.33/litre in 2017. Under notification (664) dated 30.4.2015, value added tax on diesel has increased from 12.5% in 2012 to 17% in 2017.
6.	Increase indirect tax du	in e to	Under the GST notification (Notification No. 11/2017-Central
	conversion	of	Tax (Rate)) dated 28.6.2017, the

¶76

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 13 of 48_

¶77

Page 13 of 48

¶78

	Service Tax to	GST for operations and
	Goods and	management charges has
	Services Tax (“*GST*”) on O&M charges.	increased from 15% (under the service tax regime) to 18%.
7.	Increase in costs due to immediate implementation of the 100% fly ash disposal.	The MoEF has issued a notification on 25.1.2016 under which the condition for 100% fly ash utilization must be complied with immediately on the start of commercial operations instead of 3 years under the previous regime.
8.	Increase in Electricity Duty.	The Government of Chhattisgarh (Energy Department) increased the electricity duty on auxiliary consumption from 8% in 2012 to 15% in 2016 vide endorsement number (2520/F/29/01/2016/13/2/ED) dated 12.8.2016. ”

¶79

17. The petition has been disposed off by the Commission vide the

¶80

impugned order dated 30.09.2020. The summary of the conclusion arrived

¶81

at by the Commission with regards to the said Change in Law events is given

¶82

in the table below: -

¶83

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 14 of 48_

¶84

Page 14 of 48

¶85

“

¶86

*Sl.*	*Change in Law Claim*	*Commission’s*
*No.*		*decision*
1.	New Environmental Norms.	Liberty granted
2.	Increase in the cost of G11 Grade Coal by Coal India Limited (“*CIL”) vide notification dated 29.5.2016.* Increase in the cost of G11 Grade Coal by Coal India Limited (“*CIL”) vide notification dated 08.01.2018.*	Not allowed as these notifications are applicable only on linkage coal and Petitioner’s bid was
3.	Increase in the cost of coal due to new coal distribution policy.	approved as captive coal block.
4.	Reduction of indirect tax on coal due to introduction of GST.
5.	Increase in Central Excise Duty and Value Added Tax on diesel.	Not Allowed
6.	Increase in indirect tax due to conversion of Service Tax to	Not Allowed
	Goods and Services Tax (“*GST”) on O&M.*
7.	Increase in costs due to immediate implementation of the 100% fly ash disposal.	Not Allowed
8.	Increase in Electricity Duty.	Allowed

¶87

”

¶88

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 15 of 48_

¶89

Page 15 of 48

¶90

18. We may note that while rejecting the claim of the appellant for the events mentioned at sl.no.2, 3 & 4 in the above table, the Commission has relied upon the undertaking dated 05.11.2015 given by the appellant to UPPCL ( in pursuance to which LOI was restored to the appellant) wherein the fuel source was stated to be captive coal mine (Fatehpur East) and has observed that the appellant cannot be permitted to claim impact of “Change in Law” in relation to linkage coal in total disregard to the said undertaking.

¶91

The relevant portion of the impugned order on this aspect is reproduced hereinbelow: -

¶92

“56. Accordingly, the Petitioner having accepted the restoration of LOI by providing the undertaking and based on that later having executed the PPA with Respondents and having been billing on monthly basis to UPPCL based on escalation indices for "domestic captive coal mine" category, cannot now in complete disregard of its undertaking permitted to be allowed impact of "Change in law" in relation to linkage coal. When base obligation of the Petitioner is to supply from Domestic Captive Coal mine on the basis of which the bid was evaluated and ongoing payment are also being made on related

¶93

escalation indices, the incremental compensation over

¶94

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 16 of 48_

¶95

Page 16 of 48

¶96

and above the base obligation by way of "Change in Law" with regard to linkage coal doesn't hold ground. When the Petitioner knowingly accepted the LOI restoration by providing the undertaking now it is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect of the same and claim Change in Law for items pertaining to Linkage Coal. The undertaking expressly bars the Petitioner to claim any additional tariff vis-à-vis Linkage coal. Accordingly, the instant claim of the Petitioner seeking Change in law claim on items applicable for Linkage Coal is devoid of merit and the same is rejected holding the same to be baseless and against the express provisions of the PPA Including the undertaking which forms an integral and fundamental basis of the contract.

¶97

57. As regards to the question of change in law with regard to Captive coal, Commission is of the clear opinion that the bidding as well as subsequent Undertaking dated 05.11.2015 places the Petitioner as a Generating plant based on Captive Coal mine even it is procuring coal from alternate source. Accordingly, the Petitioner has created

¶98

a "legal fiction" for himself, when it has ascribed itself a

¶99

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 17 of 48_

¶100

Page 17 of 48

¶101

status of a generating plant based on Captive coal mine irrespective of existing realty. Thus, a deeming provision has been carved out wherein the Petitioner should be treated as a generator based on deemed captive coal mine, with all necessary consequences of the deeming provision. This position can be observed in various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court:

¶102

"G. Viswanathan Vs. T. N. Legislative Assembly {(1996) 2 SCC 253)}:

¶103

"9. The scope of the legal fiction enacted in the explanation (a) to para 2 (1) of the Tenth Schedule assumes importance in this context. BY the decision of this Court it is fairly well settled that a deeming provision is an admission of the nonexistence of the fact deemed. The Legislature is competent to enact a deeming provision for the

¶104

purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does not even exist. It means that the

¶105

courts must assume that such a state of affairs exists as real and should imagine as real the

¶106

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 18 of 48_

¶107

Page 18 of 48

¶108

consequences and incidents which inevitably flow therefore and give effect to the same.

¶109

10. The deeming provision may be intended to enlarge the meaning of a particular word or to include matters which otherwise may or may fall within the main provision . The law laid down in this regard in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. Case (East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109: (1951) 2 all ER 587) has been followed by this court in a number of cases, beginning from State of Bombay V. Pandurang Vinayak (AIR1953 SC 244: 1953 Cri LJ 1094: 55 Bom LR 526) and ending with a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench in M. Venugopal V. Divisional Manager, LIC ()1994) 2 SCC 323: 1994 SCC (L&S) 664: (1994) 27 ATC 84). N.P. Singh, J, speaking for the bench, stated the law thus at page 329: (SCC para 11)-"

¶110

Therefore, the Commission is of the view that bid of the

¶111

Petitioner shall be treated as based on "deemed Captive

¶112

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 19 of 48_

¶113

Page 19 of 48

¶114

Coal mine" and accordingly, all necessary consequences

¶115

will follow.”

¶116

19. Accordingly, the appellant is before us in this appeal, being aggrieved

¶117

by the said order of the Commission.

¶118

20. The primary ground agitated in the appeal by the appellant to assail the said impugned order of the Commission is that the Commission has erred in holding that on account of the undertaking dated 05.11.2015 and acceptance of the restoration of LOI thereafter the appellant is precluded from claiming Change in Law in relation to the linkage coal. It is stated that there is nothing in the said undertaking which would restrict or preclude the appellant from claiming Change in Law event vis-à-vis linkage coal and the Commission has misinterpreted its contents. It is also stated that the Commission has erred in imposing a base obligation doctrine of supply of electricity using captive coal mine whereas actually there was no obligation upon the appellant to generate and supply power using domestic coal only at any point of time. It is further contended that the only object of giving the undertaking dated 05.11.2015 was to keep levelized tariff as the same as quoted in the bid and nothing else. Therefore, no legal fiction could have

¶119

been carved out of its contents to the effect that the source of fuel was only

¶120

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 20 of 48_

¶121

Page 20 of 48

¶122

captive coal block. It is also stated that the said undertaking is a part and parcel of the PPA and there is nothing in the PPA to suggest, even remotely, that schedule 14 contained therein overrides clause 10 relating to Change in Law.

¶123

21. It is, therefore, manifest that the appeal proceeds on the main contention that the Commission has misread as well as mis-interpreted the contents of the undertaking dated 05.11.2015 of the appellant, the object of which was only to assure levelized tariff as per the tariff quoted in the bid and not to convey that fuel source for the power plant would only be captive coal mine. It is on this ground that the appellant had assailed the findings of the Commission on the claims at sl.no.2 to 4 in the above table.

¶124

22. During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant before us on 04.03.2024 that the appellant intends to forego/not press some of its claims. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to file an affidavit in this regard.

¶125

23. An affidavit dated 15.03.2024 came to be filed on behalf of the appellant on this aspect wherein the appellant sought to forego/withdraw components in relief with regards to following Change in Law events which, according to it, are purely related to linkage coal: -

¶126

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 21 of 48_

¶127

Page 21 of 48

¶128

“(a) Increase in cost of G11 Grade Coal by CIL, on account of the following notifications:

¶129

i. Increase in Coal Sizing Charges;

¶130

ii. Increase in coal transfer due to increase in siding charges;

¶131

iii. Increase in ROM price;

¶132

iv. Introduction of Evacuation Facility Charges;

¶133

(b) Increase in expenditure due to amendment of National Coal Distribution Policy;

¶134

(c) Reduction of Indirect Tax on Coal due to introduction of GST;”

¶135

24. At the same time, by way of the said affidavit the appellant sought compensation based on following Change in Law events which, according to it, are based solely on captive coal block: -

¶136

(a) Increase in captive cost on account of following notifications: -

¶137

(i) Increase in cost due to Mines and Minerals Development Charges in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶138

(ii) Increase in CG Paryavaran and Vikas Upkar in view of amendment dated 08.09.2015 and 15.08.2019 to the

¶139

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 22 of 48_

¶140

Page 22 of 48

¶141

Chhattisgarh (Adhosanrachna Vikas Evam Paryavaran) Upkar

¶142

Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶143

(iii) Increase in Central Excise duty on coal due to revision in Chapter 27 Section V of Finance Act, 2015 through series of notifications issued by Ministry of Finance dated 01.03.2016.

¶144

(iv) Increase in Clean Energy Cess through notification dated 01.03.2016 issued by Ministry of Finance.

¶145

(v) Increase in Busy Season Surcharge by way of notification dated 18.09.2015 issued by Ministry of Railways.

¶146

25. Supporting documents were sought to be filed by appellant by way of IA No.85/2024 which was allowed vide order dated 14.05.2024.

¶147

26. Thus, hearing of the appeal proceeded thereafter with regards to the following events which the appellant had claimed to be Change in Law events and sought to be compensated accordingly: -

¶148

(a) Increase in captive cost on account of following notifications: -

¶149

(i) Increase in cost due to Mines and Minerals Development Charges in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶150

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 23 of 48_

¶151

Page 23 of 48

¶152

(ii) Increase in CG Paryavaran and Vikas Upkar in view of amendment dated 08.09.2015 and 15.08.2019 to the Chhattisgarh (Adhosanrachna Vikas Evam Paryavaran) Upkar Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶153

(iii) Increase in Central Excise duty on coal due to revision in Chapter 27 Section V of Finance Act, 2015 through series of notifications issued by Ministry of Finance dated 01.03.2016.

¶154

(iv) Increase in Clean Energy Cess through notification dated 01.03.2016 issued by Ministry of Finance.

¶155

(v) Increase in Busy Season Surcharge by way of notification dated 18.09.2015 issued by Ministry of Railways.

¶156

(b) Increase in Excise Duty and VAT for secondary fuel through notifications dated 30.04.2015 and 05.07.2017 issued by Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell.

¶157

(c) Change of Service Tax regime to VAT for O&M charges on account of notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power.

¶158

(d) Increase in cost of transportation for 100% Fly Ash Disposal Requirement as stipulated by way of notification dated 25.01.2016 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests.

¶159

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 24 of 48_

¶160

Page 24 of 48

¶161

27. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as

¶162

the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5. We have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and the citations relied upon by the learned senior counsels.

¶163

28. It has been vehemently submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5 that having sought permission from this Tribunal to forego/withdraw/relinquish some of its claims agitated in the instant appeal, the appellant has, by way of the affidavit dated 15.03.2024 filed in pursuance to the order dated 04.03.2024 of this Tribunal, changed its entire case set up by it before the Commission and initially before this Tribunal in the memorandum of appeal. It is argued that the Change in Law events for which the appellant had sought to be compensated before the Commission related to notifications issued by Coal India Limited which affected only linkage coal. Even in the pleadings before the Commission as well as in the instant appeal, the appellant has claimed compensation for the Change in Law events vis-à-vis linkage coal. It is submitted that the appellant has now sought to be compensated for altogether different Change in Law events which affect the coal obtained from captive coal block and thus has gone beyond its own pleadings before the Commission and in the instant appeal. The learned senior counsel would submit that the appellant cannot

¶164

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 25 of 48_

¶165

Page 25 of 48

¶166

be permitted to put up a case which is totally distinct from the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. He further pointed out that the claims now being agitated by the appellant are not only barred by limitation but are otherwise also bound to fail for the reason that no mandatory notice as required under Article 10.4.1 of the PPA has been served by the appellant upon the respondents.

¶167

29. On this aspect, it has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is without any logical reasoning. It is submitted that appellant has decided to accept the findings rendered by the Commission in Paragraph nos.56 and 57 of the impugned order whereby a deeming fiction was created and it was held that the bid of the appellant will be treated as based on “deemed captive coal mine”. It is argued that as per the settled law where a deeming fiction is created, the same has to be given full effect. It is further submitted that the appellant being dominus litus in the present appeal, there is no impediment before it preventing it from reducing the scope of appeal at any stage. It is also submitted that the Change in Law notices dated 28.12.2017 and 28.06.2018 issued by the appellant are in respect of both (i) claims which have been given up by the appellant vide affidavit dated 15.03.2024 and (ii) claims which have been retained/set up by the appellant. It is argued that

¶168

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 26 of 48_

¶169

Page 26 of 48

¶170

the appellant has not pleaded any new claim in its affidavit dated 25.03.2024, rather has only given up its claims regarding certain Change in Law events.

¶171

30. The learned senior counsel has cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Harish Tandon v. The Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors., 1995 1 SCC 537 to buttress his submissions that when a legal

¶172

fiction is created, it must be given its full effect.

¶173

31. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned senior counsels on this aspect and have also perused the relevant record.

¶174

Our Analysis: -

¶175

32. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned senior counsels and having perused the record, we are unable to countenance the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that by way of affidavit dated 15.03.2024, the appellant has only given up/withdrawn its claim with regards to certain Change in Law events and has not set up or introduced a new case by agitating altogether difference Change in Law events. The claim of the appellant in its amended petition

¶176

no.1365/2018 before the Commission was as below: -

¶177

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 27 of 48_

¶178

Page 27 of 48

¶179

“5. The present petition has been filed because there are certain change in law events which have occurred both during the construction of the Project and during its operation that has had an impact on the cost/revenue of the Petitioner. A summary of these change in law events are set out below:

¶180

Table No. 1: Snapshot of Change in Law events

¶181

S.	Change in Law Claim	Basis for Change in Law
No.		Claim
	DIRING O	… PERATIONS
2.	*Increase in the cost*	The increase in the cost of
	*of G11 Grade Coal*	coal from Rs. 730/MT in 2012
	*by Coal India*	to Rs. 810/MT in 2016 has
	*Limited (“CIL”) vide*	increased the following costs
	*notification dated* *29.5.2016.*	upto Nov 2017: (a) Increase in coal cost due to the Mines and Minerals
		Development Charges @ 2% of royalty payable and
		District Minerals
		Foundation Charges @
		30% of royalty payable
		*vide CIL’s notification*
		*(1936) dated 14.11.2015.*

¶182

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 28 of 48_

¶183

Page 28 of 48

¶184

(b)	Increase in coal sizing
	charges for 100MM size
	from Rs. 77/MT in 2012 to
	Rs. 79/MT in 2013 vide
	CIL’s notification (2784) dated 16.12.2013.
(c)	Increase in coal transfer to siding charge (upto 10 KM)
	from Rs. 44/MT in 2012 to
	Rs. 59/MT in 2013 vide
	CIL’s notification (2340)
	dated 13.11.2013.
(d)	Increase in CG Paryavaran and Vikas Upkar Tax from
	5% in 2012 to 7.5% in
	2015 *vide* _CIL’s _
	*notification (1420) dated* *19.8.2015*.
(e)	Increase in Central Excise
	Duty from 5% in 2012 to
	6% in 2015_vide CIL’s _
	*notification (1420) dated* *19.8.2015.*
(f)	Increase in Clean Environmental Cess from

¶185

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 29 of 48_

¶186

Page 29 of 48

¶187

	Rs. 50/MT to Rs. 400/MT in 2016 *vide* _CIL’s _
	*notification (440) dated* *29.2.2016.*
	(g) Increase in ROM price in 2018 vide CIL’s notification (CIL:M&S/GM(F): Pricing dated 8.1.2018.
	(h) Increase in busy season
	surcharge from 12% in
Increase in the cost of	2012 to 15% in 2013 vide
GII Grade Coal by	Ministry of Railways
*Coal India Limited*	notification
_(“CIL”) _ *vide*	(TCR/1078/2008/11)
*notification* *dated*	dated 18.9.2013.
*08.01.2018.*
	The increase in the cost of coal from Rs.810/MT in 2012 to Rs.955/MT in Jan 2018 has increased the following costs from Jan 2018:
	(a) Increase in coal cost due to the Mines and Minerals

¶188

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 30 of 48_

¶189

Page 30 of 48

¶190

Development Charges @
2% of royalty payable and
District Mineral Foundation
Charge @ 30% of royalty
payable vide CIL’s
notification (1936) dated
14.11.2015.
(b) Increase in coal sizing
charges for 100MM size
from Rs.79/MT in 2016 to
Rs.87/MT in 2018 vide
South Eastern Coalfields
Limited’s Minewise price
indicator dated
09.01.2018.
(c) Increase in coal transfer to
siding charges (upto
10KM) from Rs.57/MT in
2016 to Rs.87/MT in 2016
vide South Eastern
Coalfields Limited’s
Minewise price indicator
dated 09.01.2018.
(d) Introduction of evacuation
facility charges vide CIL’s

¶191

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 31 of 48_

¶192

Page 31 of 48

¶193

	notification	dated
	19.12.2017
… …	…
		”

¶194

33. In rejoinder dated 20.01.2020 to the additional reply filed by UPPCL in the said petition, the appellant averred as under: -

¶195

“XI There is no question of waiver or of approbatereprobate because the Petitioner never waived his rights, either directly or indirectly and moreover, the undertaking dated 5.11.2015 does not preclude the Petitioner from claiming change in law events vis a vis linkage coal.

¶196

29. The contents of paragraph 29 are a matter of record insofar as the execution of the undertaking dated 5.11.2015 by the Petitioner is concerned. It is submitted however, that the Respondent UPPCL is misinterpreting and misreading the undertaking dated 05.11.2015. In point of fact the claim for change in law vis a vis linkage coal nowhere detracts from or is dectracted by the undertaking. The undertaking as its stands merely states as follows:-

¶197

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 32 of 48_

¶198

Page 32 of 48

¶199

This undertaking was accepted by the Respondent UPPCL and was also made an integral part of the PPA. The above undertaking merely replaces the source of fuel from captive coal mine to alternative coal linkage fuel, all other parameters of the bid remaining unchanged. This was so accepted by this Hon'ble Commission while appearing the restoration of the LOI. There is nothing in the said undertaking to even remotely suggest that the provisions of the PPA pertaining to change in law would not apply. The only affect of the said undertaking being to change the source of coal from Coal mines to Linkage, the only claim of change in law on fuel being made by the Petitioner is with respect to linkage . It is well settled that nothing can be read into a document if there is no ambiguity or confusion as per the language of a document. The document has to be read as it stands without adding or deleting any word from the document. The petitioner craves leave to rely on its undertaking dated 5.11.2015 at the time of the hearing to make its submissions.

¶200

50. The contents of para 50 are denied. It is submitted that the correspondences prior to the PPA cannot be relied upon due to Article 15.6.1 read with Article 15.6.2. The Respondent UPPCL had executed the PPA which contained Article 10. As

¶201

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 33 of 48_

¶202

Page 33 of 48

¶203

stated above, Article 10 contained no exceptions for change in law vis a vis coal linkage. Therefore, the Respondent UPPCL cannot avoid its contractual obligation to compensate the Petitioner for change in law events arising out of linkage coal.

¶204

51. The contents of para. 51 are denied. The Petitioners undertaking dated 5.11.2015, in no way amounts to a waiver of its right to claim compensation arising out of change in law vis a vis linkage coal.

¶205

57. The contents of para. 57 are denied. As stated above, the change in law claim vis a vis linkage coal has no connection with the Petitioners undertaking dated 5.11.2015. The Petitioner reiterates that its claim for compensation for change in law events arising out of linkage coal are valid and deserve to be allowed by this Hon’ble Commission…”

¶206

34. Perusal of these pleadings of the appellant before the Commission

¶207

clearly reveal that the case of the appellant before the Commission was founded upon various notifications issued by Coal India Limited linked to linkage coal. In the rejoinder, the appellant has made it clear that its claims

¶208

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 34 of 48_

¶209

Page 34 of 48

¶210

regarding Change in Law events are with respect to linkage coal. There is no mention at all about any Change in Law events related to captive coal in the entire petition or the rejoinder filed by the appellant before the Commission.

¶211

35. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order of the Commission mainly on the ground that the Commission has erred by misreading and misinterpreting the contents of undertaking dated 05.11.2015 which nowhere precluded the appellant from

¶212

claiming relief with regards to Change in Law even vis-à-vis linkage coal. Therefore, the case set up by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal also was that the Commission has erred in refusing relief to it in respect of the Change in Law events lined to linkage coal.

¶213

36. The Change in Law events regarding which the appellant is now seeking relief by way of affidavit dated 15.03.2024 have already been noted in Paragraph no.26 hereinabove. The Change in Law events agitated now by the appellant at sl. no. a(i) to a(v) relate to the captive coal alone for which there were no pleadings on behalf of the appellant before the Commission nor were those agitated in the memorandum of appeal. These events are seeing light of the day for the first time after the filing of affidavit dated

¶214

15.03.2024 by the appellant. It is true that by way of said affidavit dated

¶215

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 35 of 48_

¶216

Page 35 of 48

¶217

15.03.2024 the appellant has given up/withdrawn its claim for compensation with regards to certain Change in Law events related to linkage coal (for which no relief was given to appellant by the Commission in the impugned order) but it is equally true that by way of said affidavit, the appellant has introduced/setup altogether new claims with regards to the Change in Law events related to captive coal for which there are absolutely no pleadings before this Tribunal.

¶218

37. It is a settled law that in the garb of giving up / withdrawing some of the claims, a petitioner or appellant cannot be permitted to introduce fresh claims without seeking permission to amend the pleadings suitably. It is also a settled legal principle that fresh claims set up during the appeal proceedings which are in total variance to the original pleadings before the Commission and the memorandum of appeal, do not merit any consideration and are liable to be rejected straightaway.

¶219

38. Vide order dated 04.03.2024, this Tribunal had directed the appellant to file an affidavit stating as to which of its claims does it intend to give up. Neither had the appellant sought permission to agitate any fresh claim/Change in Law event nor was any such permission given by this Tribunal. The conduct of the appellant in setting up fresh claims with regards

¶220

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 36 of 48_

¶221

Page 36 of 48

¶222

to altogether different Change in Law events is inexplicable. These claims do not merit any consideration at all.

¶223

39. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant is dominus litus in the present appeal and competent to give up or withdraw some of its claims. However, what the appellant has done in the instant appeal is to substitute its earlier claims by fresh claims, which cannot be permitted at all in the appeal proceedings. This is not a case of simple giving up/withdrawal of some of the claims by the appellant. It is a case where the appellant, while giving up / withdrawing some of its claims related to linkage coal has set up/introduced altogether fresh claims related to captive coal for which there are no pleadings at all. If the appellant had actually made up its mind to accept the findings rendered by the Commission in Paragraph nos.56 & 57 of the impugned order (which have already been extracted hereinabove in Paragraph no. 18) the proper course available to it was to file an application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal including the grounds of appeal, which would have been decided by this Tribunal as per law.

¶224

40. We may note that an appeal is the extension of the original suit/petition filed before the subordinate court/forum, which is the Commission in the instant case. Therefore, this appeal is an extension of the petition filed before the Commission by the appellant and has to be decided on the basis

¶225

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 37 of 48_

¶226

Page 37 of 48

¶227

of pleadings of the parties before the Commission and the documents filed in support thereof. The Change in Law events now sought to be agitated by the appellant in this appeal were neither pleaded before the Commission nor was any document in support thereof filed before the Commission. Hence, these Change in Law events cannot be looked into or considered in this appeal. The scope of this appeal, as initially filed, was to examine the legality and validity of the impugned order of the Commission in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them. The appellant cannot be permitted to change altogether the scope of appeal by agitating fresh Change in Law events which were never pleaded before the Commission in the original petition.

¶228

41. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University case (supra) and Harish Tandon case (supra) relied up by the learned senior counsel for the appellant are not material at all for the reason that these judgments deal with “legal fiction” created by a statute, which is not the case herein. In the instant case, the legal/deeming fiction has been created by the Commission in the impugned order. Even otherwise also the legal/deeming fiction can be given full effect only as per the procedure prescribed under law. As already observed hereinabove, the appellant has

¶229

failed to follow the proper procedure prescribed under law for substitution/amendment of its claims.

¶230

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 38 of 48_

¶231

Page 38 of 48

¶232

42. Arguments had been advanced by the learned senior counsels for the parties on two more aspects namely (a) whether the claim of the appellant in respect of Change in Law events now sought to be agitated by way of affidavit dated 25.03.2024 are within limitation and (b) whether the Change in Law notices dated 28.12.2017 and 28.06.2018 issued by the appellant are in respect of these Change in Law events also? Once we have held that the Change in Law events sought to be agitated by the appellant by way of affidavit dated 15.03.2024 are not only beyond the scope of this appeal but also de hors the pleadings of the parties before the Commission and thus, do not merit any consideration, we do not find it appropriate to discuss these two aspects. We leave these two aspects to be decided by the Commission in a fresh petition to be filed by the appellant, if so advised, to claim relief with regards to the Change in Law events related to captive coal block. Any discussion by us on these two aspects in this judgment may prejudice the case of either of the parties in the proceedings to be initiated by the appellant

¶233

in future, if any.

¶234

43. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Change in Law events

¶235

mentioned at sl.nos. a(i) to a(v) in Paragraph no.26 of this judgment do not

¶236

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 39 of 48_

¶237

Page 39 of 48

¶238

merit any consideration and no relief can be given to the appellant regarding

¶239

those events in this appeal.

¶240

(b) Increase in Excise Duty and VAT for secondary fuel through notifications dated 30.04.2015 and 05.07.2017 issued by Petroleum

¶241

Planning and Analysis Cell.

¶242

44. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that as on bid cutoff date, Central Excise Duty on diesel was Rs.3.46/liter and VAT was 12.5%/liter. However, post the bid cutoff date, Central Excise Duty on diesel has been increased to Rs.17.33/liter and VAT has been increased to 17%. It is submitted that on account of said increase in the rates of Central Excise Duty and VAT on diesel, cost of generation of the appellant’s power project has increased by Rs.0.0009/kWh. It is further argued that such increase in Central Excise Duty and VAT on diesel has been held to be a Change in Law event by this Tribunal in judgment dated 19.04.2017 in Sasan Power Limited v. CERC & Ors. (Appeal no.161/2015) and therefore, in view of Article 10 of the PPA dated 15.03.2016, appellant is entitled to be compensated for the same.

¶243

45. The claim of the appellant under this head has been rejected by the

¶244

Commission in the impugned order on the ground that the appellant has not

¶245

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 40 of 48_

¶246

Page 40 of 48

¶247

clarified if the use of diesel as secondary fuel is permissible as per design specifications of the power plant and that appellant has not placed on record any document to show that the increase in the price of diesel has been in pursuance to any notification issued by Indian Government Instrumentality as specified in Article 10 of the PPA.

¶248

46. We are constrained to note that the appellant has not placed on record in this appeal also any document in support of its stand that diesel can be used by it as secondary fuel as per design specification of its power project. Therefore, we are unable to find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the Commission on this aspect.

¶249

(c) Change of Service Tax regime to VAT for O&M charges on account of notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power.

¶250

47. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that as on cutoff date, GST for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) charges was contemplated at 15% but post the cutoff date, GST has been increased to 18% with effect from 01.07.2017 by way of notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power. It is submitted that the said notification having been issued by a instrumentality of government, constitutes Change in Law event for which

¶251

the appellant is entitled to be compensated. It is also submitted that this

¶252

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 41 of 48_

¶253

Page 41 of 48

¶254

notification has been held to be a Change in Law event by this Tribunal in judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed in appeal nos.284/2017 & 09/2018 titled Adani Power Rajasthan Limited v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

¶255

48. The claim of the appellant under this head has been rejected by the Commission on the following reasoning: -

¶256

“The Commission is of the view that in the Competitive Bidding Scenario, the Petitioner bids various parts of tariff viz; capacity, energy and transportation charge without disclosing the details of the calculations of the project cost. Petitioner had the option to quote these charges under escalable / non-escalable components with escalation of escalable component governed by escalation indices for payment purposes published by CERC. The Commission does not find merit in the argument of the Petitioner that compensation on O&M expenses should be allowed on the lines of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Tariff) Regulations, 2014. The present Petitions relates

¶257

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 42 of 48_

¶258

Page 42 of 48

¶259

to section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such drawing reference to cost plus tariff fixation principles, is misplaced. Therefore, Commission is not inclined to allow any increase in cost on this account.”

¶260

49. It cannot be disputed that the notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power whereby the GST for O&M charges was increased from 15% (under service tax regime) to 18% constitutes a Change in Law event. However, the Commission has refused to grant compensation to the appellant on this count on the ground that the appellant had option to quote these charges under escalable/non-escalable components in the bid. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the Commission in declining relief to the appellant under this head. Once it is held by this Tribunal that the said notification dated 28.06.2017 constitutes a Change in Law event, compensation for the same cannot be denied to the appellant on any ground whatsoever particularly on the ground that the appellant did not mention these charges under escabable component in the bid, as held by the Commission in the impugned order.

¶261

50. Therefore, the findings of the Commission on this count are set aside.

¶262

We hold the appellant entitled to compensation on account of increase in

¶263

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 43 of 48_

¶264

Page 43 of 48

¶265

GST on O&M charges from 15% to 18% by way of notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power and direct the Commission to allow the increase in cost of power project to the appellant accordingly.

¶266

(d) Increase in cost of transportation for 100% Fly Ash Disposal Requirement as stipulated by way of notification dated 25.01.2016

¶267

issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests.

¶268

51. The Commission, in the impugned order, has declined to accept the notification dated 25.01.2016 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests as a Change in Law event on the following reasoning: -

¶269

“In Commission’s view, as per MOEF notifications, Petitioner was always under an obligation to ensure 100% utilization of Fly Ash and the Notification dated 25.01.2016 is further amendment to the Notification dated 14.09.1999 mainly to the effect that the area within which the fly ash is to be utilized has been increased from 100 kms to 300 kms. Therefore, in pursuance to the documents available on record, Commission is not inclined to accept the said notification dated 25.01.2016 as change in law.”

¶270

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 44 of 48_

¶271

Page 44 of 48

¶272

52. In this regard, we may note that the said notification dated 25.01.2016 issued by Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change along with subsequent notifications dated 31.12.2021, 30.12.2022 and 01.01.2024 have been held to be Change in Law events by this Tribunal in judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed in appeal no.345/2021 titled Rattan India Power Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. Therefore,

¶273

in view of the said judgment of this Tribunal, the impugned order of the Commission on this aspect cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The Commission is directed to calculate the impact of said notification upon the power project of the appellant and allow compensation to the appellant accordingly.

¶274

53. We summarize our findings in the following table: -

¶275

Sl. No.	Issue No. & Issue	Our decision
1.	Issue No.a(i) to (v):	Not considered as
		being beyond the
	(a) Increase in captive cost on account of	scope of this appeal
	following notifications: -	and_de hors_the

¶276

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 45 of 48_

¶277

Page 45 of 48

¶278

(i)	Increase in cost due to Mines and	pleading	s of	the
	Minerals Development Charges in	parties	before	the
	terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Amendment Act, 2015.	Commis	sion.
(ii)	Increase in CG Paryavaran and Vikas Upkar in view of amendment
	dated 08.09.2015 and 15.08.2019 to the Chhattisgarh
	(Adhosanrachna Vikas Evam Paryavaran) Upkar Adhiniyam, 2005.
(iii)	Increase in Central Excise duty on coal due to revision in Chapter 27
	Section V of Finance Act, 2015
	through series of notifications issued by Ministry of Finance dated
	01.03.2016.
(iv)	Increase in Clean Energy Cess
	through notification dated

¶279

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 46 of 48_

¶280

Page 46 of 48

¶281

	(v)	01.03.2016 issued by Ministry of Finance. Increase in Busy Season Surcharge by way of notification dated 18.09.2015 issued by Ministry of Railways.
2.	(b)	Increase in Excise Duty and VAT for secondary fuel through notifications dated 30.04.2015 and 05.07.2017 issued by Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell.	Not allowed
3.	(c)	Change of Service Tax regime to VAT for O&M charges on account of notification dated 28.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Power.	Allowed and remanded back to the Commission for computation of
			impact upon the appellant.
4.	(d)	Increase in cost of transportation for	Allowed and
		100% Fly Ash Disposal	remanded back to

¶282

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 47 of 48_

¶283

Page 47 of 48

¶284

Requirement as stipulated by way of the Commission for
notification dated 25.01.2016 issued computation of
by Ministry of Environment and impact upon the
Forests. appellant.

¶285

54. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

¶286

Pronounced in the open court on this the 07^th day of August, 2025.

¶287

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

¶288

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member (Electricity)

¶289

√ REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

¶290

¶291

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal No.109 of 2022 Page 48 of 48_

¶292

Page 48 of 48

Appeal No.109 of 2022 of Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Up Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal No.109 of 2022 of Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Up Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

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

Appeal No. 432 of 2019 & Ia No. 2211 of 2023 & Ia No. 1386 of 2019 And Appeal No. 433 of 2019 & Ia No. 2212 of 2023 of M/S Renew Wind Energy (TN2) Private Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 113 of 2022 of M/s Jaiprakash Powers Ventures Limited versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.107 of 2020 of M/s Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd. versus Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Uppcl) & Anr.

Appeal No. 240 of 2020 of Jindal Aluminium Limited versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Apl No. 307 of 2022 & Ia No. 667 of 2025 & Ia No. 1125 of 2022 & Ia No. 1012 of 2025 of Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association versus West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 54 of 2021 of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited & Ors. versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 82 of 2017 of Faridabad Industries Association versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.424 of 2019 of Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 240 of 2020 of Jindal Aluminium Limited versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.107 of 2020 of M/s Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd. versus Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Uppcl) & Anr.

Appeal No. 113 of 2022 of M/s Jaiprakash Powers Ventures Limited versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 56 of 2017 & Appeal No. 325 of 2017 of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 198 of 2016 of Sihor Steel Rerolling Mills Association versus Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 61 of 2019 of Matrix Power (Wind) Private Ltd. versus Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.