Allowed

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power Limited v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

APTEL15 Jul 2025APPEAL No. 148 of 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity allowed the appeal against the State Commission's order denying carrying cost. The Tribunal held that the Commission violated natural justice by not hearing the appellant regarding delays and clarified principles of interest on retained funds. Consequently, carrying cost was awarded from the date the tariff became due.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to carrying cost at 12.8% per annum from the date the tariff became due till actual payment.

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | APTEL (2025)

¶1

IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

APPEAL No. 148 of 2023

¶3

Dated : 15^th July, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

M/s. Korba Power Limited

¶7

Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Tanmay Vyas (Associate General Manager) Having its office at, Flat No. 5A, 5^th floor, D. No. 6-3-626/1/601, Parameshwara, Apartment, Anand Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 500 004, Telangana Also at Corporate office: KP Epitome, 4^th Floor, Energy Regulatory and Commercial Group (ERCG) Adani Power Ltd Near DAV International School, Makarba, Ahmedabad – 380 051, Gujarat Email: [email protected] …Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar Raipur (CG.) Pin – 492001 Through its Secretary Tel: 91-771-4073555 Email: [email protected]

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶12

Page 1 of 22

¶13

2. M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin – 492013 Through its Chief Engineer Tel: 0771 – 2574125 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

¶14

3. M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin – 492013 Through its Chief Engineer Tel: 0771 – 1912; 1800 – 233 - 4687 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] …Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Deepak Khurana Vineet Tayal Abhishek Bansal Nishtha Wadhwa Bhaskar for App. 1 Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ritesh Khare for Res. 1

¶16

Akshat Shrivastava for Res. 3

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶19

1. The Appellant – M/s Korba Power Limited previously known as

¶20

(M/s Lanco Amarkantak Power Limited) is aggrieved by the order dated

¶21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 2 of 22

¶22

Page 2 of 22

¶23

8^th August, 2022 passed by 1^st Respondent – Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) thereby determining tariff for the Appellant’s thermal power project having the capacity of 600 MW in District Korba Chattisgarh for the Financial Year 2011-12 i.e. for the period from 22^nd June, 2011 to 31^st March, 2012 and Financial Year 2012-13 i.e. for the period from 1^st April, 2012 to 1^st October, 2013 for the power generated from Unit-II of the said power project. The Appellant is assailing the said tariff order of the Commission to the extent it has granted carrying cost to the Appellant only w.e.f. 3^rd October, 2019 for the power supplied by appellant to 2^nd Respondent during the Financial Year 2011-12 and also to the extent that carrying cost w.e.f. 3^rd October, 2019 has been granted in line with the computation done by the Commission while passing the tariff orders for the state power companies.

¶24

The Appellant is a generating company within the meaning the said

¶25

term in Section 2(23) of Electricity Act, 2003 and is operating the 600 MW coal based thermal power project in District Korba comprising two units of 300 MW each. The instant appeal pertains to Unit-II of the plant.

¶26

The Respondent No. 2 – Chhattisgarh State Power Training

¶27

Company Limited is a deemed trading licensee and is authorized

¶28

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶29

Page 3 of 22

¶30

representative of Government of Chhattisgarh to execute Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the independent power producers as well as to sell the power so contracted on behalf of the Government. The 3^rd Respondent Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. is a Distribution Licensee in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶31

In pursuance to a tripartite memorandum of understanding dated 17^th September, 2008 and Implementation Agreement dated 1^st August, 2009 executed between the Appellant, Government of Chhattisgarh and the 3^rd Respondent, Power Purchase Agreement dated 12^th January, 2011 was entered into between the Appellant and the 2^nd Respondent for supply of 35% power from Unit-II of the Appellant’s aforesaid power plant at a tariff to be approved by the Commission.

¶32

On the basis of the said Implementation Agreement and the PPA, this Tribunal vide order dated 23^rd March, 2011 passed in Appeal No. 15 of 2011 had directed the Appellant to supply 35% power to 2^nd Respondent and the balance 65% power to Haryana Discoms through PTC. It would be pertinent to state here that the said order of this Tribunal was made absolute vide final order dated 4^th November, 2011 passed in the said appeal and was even continued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶33

vide interim order dated 16^th December, 2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.

¶34

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶35

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶36

Page 4 of 22

¶37

10239 of 2011. Accordingly, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 23^rd March, 2011 of this Tribunal, the Appellant commenced supply of power to 2^nd Respondent from 22^nd June, 2011 and continued the supply till 1^st October, 2012 when the 2^nd Respondent itself stopped scheduling of power from Unit-II of the Appellant’s power project.

¶38

It appears that the 2^nd Respondent had decided to release payments to the Appellant at a flat rate of Rs.2.85 per kwh or actual tariff rate whichever was lower. The tariff rate was not acceptable to the Appellant and accordingly it filed petition No. 48 of 2012 before the Commission seeking adjudication of the dispute between it and 2^nd Respondent under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the petition came to be rejected by the Commission vide order dated 30^th December, 2014 holding that the disputes in relation to tariff could not be resolved without determination of tariff.

¶39

Accordingly, the Appellant approached the Commission again by way of Petition No. 18 of 2018 under Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 and 64(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking determination of tariff for power already supplied by it to 2^nd Respondent from 22^nd June, 2011 to 1^st October, 2012. The Appellant had also sought carrying cost on the

¶40

monthly differential amount being the difference between tariff to be

¶41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 5 of 22

¶42

Page 5 of 22

¶43

approved and a provisional flat rate at which payments were made by 2^nd Respondent to be computed from the date the tariff became due. This petition has been disposed off by the Commission vide impugned order dated 8^th August, 2022 thereby determining tariff for the power already supplied by Appellant to 2^nd Respondent and also allowing carrying cost only from 3^rd October, 2019 at the rate as approved by the Commission in the relevant tariff orders passed in petitions filed by state power companies.

¶44

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsels for Respondents. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the Learned Counsels.

¶45

Before analyzing the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find it apposite to extract hereunder the relevant portion of impugned order :-

¶46

“31. Payment of carrying cost

¶47

It is noted that the petitioner's company came up with the dispute

¶48

before the Commission related to rate of tariff for supply of power

¶49

by the petitioner to the respondent in petition no. 48 of 2012. The

¶50

order in this petition was passed on 30 Dec 2014. This petition was

¶51

dismissed as the tariff was not determined by the Commission.

¶52

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 6 of 22

¶53

Page 6 of 22

¶54

Subsequent to this the petitioner filed this instant petition for determination of tariff on 19 Jan 2018. However, there was a data gap and the complete data was submitted by petitioner on 03/10/2019. Therefore, petitioner is allowed to recover carrying cost, if any, from 03/10/2019 at the rate as approved by the Commission in the relevant tariff orders passed in petitions filed by State Power Companies and shall be computed in line with the computations done by the Commission while passing the tariff orders for State Power Companies. However, due to delay in filing tariff petition by the petitioner, holding cost, if any, shall be payable from the date it became due at the rate as approved by the Commission in the relevant tariff orders passed in petitions filed by State Power Companies.”

¶55

The Commission has, thus, disallowed carrying cost to the Appellant prior to 03.10.2019 on the ground of delay in filing the petition for determination of tariff as well as non-supply of complete data along with the petition.

¶56

It patently appears from the perusal of impugned order that the Commission has not asked the Appellant to explain the delay in filing the tariff petition and has come to conclusion that the petition suffers from

¶57

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 7 of 22

¶58

Page 7 of 22

¶59

delay, without hearing the parties. Such approach of the Commission is not acceptable. Interestingly, the Commission has noted in paragraph 13 of the impugned order, the objection of the respondent that the petition is barred by limitation. However, it overruled the objection on the ground that bar of limitation does not apply to the Tariff Petition filed under Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Power Co-ordination Committee & ors. vs. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 468.

¶60

Despite the same, there is no discussion in the entire impugned order on the reasons for delay in filing the petition by the Appellant. No query appears to have been put to the Appellant on this aspect. Thus, it is clear case where the Appellant has been condemned unheard in violation of basic principle of natural justice “Audi alterum partem” i.e. nobody should be condemned unheard.

¶61

Further, before denying carrying cost to the Appellant for the period prior to 03.10.2019, the Commission ought to have given a finding that the delay in filing the petition was intentional or solely attributable to the Appellant. The impugned order does not bear any such finding simply

¶62

for the reason that the Commission did not dwell upon the reasons for

¶63

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶64

Page 8 of 22

¶65

delay in filing the petition. Mere delay in filing the Tariff Petition would not disentitle the Appellant from Carrying cost. It is where the Commission finds the delay intentional, contumacious, inordinate and unexplained that carrying cost from the period of delay would be denied.

¶66

Now, let us analyze whether the delay on the part of Appellant in filing the tariff petition was such as would disentitle it from carrying cost

¶67

for the period of delay.

¶68

We may note that the Appellant had initially approached the Commission by way of petition No. 48/2012 under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 raising a dispute with regards the rate at which the 2^nd Respondent was paying tariff to it. The petition came to be dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 30.12.2014 holding that such dispute cannot be resolved without determination of tariff and with observation that “either of the parties had to approach the appropriate Commission for determination of tariff”.

¶69

It is contended on behalf of the Appellant, which has remained undisputed on behalf of the respondents, that it persisted with the Respondent No. 2 by way of letters dated 01.05.2015, 24.09.2015, 02.06.2016 and 04.04.2017 to get tariff determined by the Commission

¶70

but no response was received from the Respondents.

¶71

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶72

Page 9 of 22

¶73

Ultimately, the Appellant filed the tariff petition No. 18 of 2018 (which has been disposed off vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2022) on 19.01.2018.

¶74

It appears that in the meanwhile, the Appellant had approached the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short “HERC”) for determination of tariff for the 65% of power supplied by Appellant to Haryana Discoms from the same Unit-II of same Korba Thermal Power Plant, which was disposed off by the Commission vide order dated 23.01.2015 determining tariff from the period from 07.05.2011 to March, 2013. The Haryana Commission had assessed the capital cost of Unit-II of the power plant as Rs.1235.58 crores. Feeling dissatisfied, the Appellant impugned the said order of HERC before this Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 117 of 2015.

¶75

Here it would be pertinent to note that Appellant had supplied 35% of the power from the same Unit-II of the power plant to Respondent No. 2 during the period in question, the capital cost of which was under consideration before this Tribunal in the aforesaid Appeal No. 117 of 2015.

¶76

The said Appeal No. 117 of 2015 was disposed off by this Tribunal

¶77

vide order dated 21.03.2018 thereby holding that the capital cost of Unit-

¶78

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶79

Page 10 of 22

¶80

II of the Appellant’s power plant assessed by Commission as Rs.1235.28

¶81

crores for tariff computation appears to be reasonable and justified.

¶82

Therefore, even if the Appellant would have filed the tariff petition

¶83

in the year 2015 (i.e. soon after the dismissal of petition No. 48 of 2012 vide order dated 30.12.2014), the Commission would have deferred its disposal till the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 117 of 2015 regarding the capital cost of the Unit-II of Appellant’s power plant which had been determined by HERC and assailed by Appellant before this Tribunal. The Commission would not have been in a position to determine tariff as the determination of capital cost, which is one of the parameters to be considered for determining tariff for a power plant, was sub-judice before this Tribunal in said Appeal No. 117 of 2015. This is evident from the perusal of impugned order itself wherein the Commission has considered the capital cost of the Appellant’s power plant (Unit-II) as assessed by HERC and approved by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 117 of 2015. The relevant portion of the impugned order in this regard is extracted herein below :-

¶84

“15.1 Capital Cost and Additional Capitalization

¶85

Petitioner’s Submission

¶86

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶87

Page 11 of 22

¶88

Petitioner has requested the Commission to determine the tariff considering the Capital Cost of ₹ 1235.28 crore as on COD as it reach its finality vide in the Appeal no. 117 of 2015 filed before the Hon’ble APTEL, which has also been approved by the Hon’ble HERC in its order dated 23.01.2015 after a detailed exercise and prudence check on the capital cost against the actual audited capital cost of ₹ 1356.11 crore as on COD for Unit-2.

¶89

Respondent’s Submission

¶90

Respondent submitted that as per clause 14 of the MYT Tariff Regulations, 2010, the capital cost shall be admitted by the Commission after prudence check. However, in the instant case the petitioner has itself computed the capital cost of Unit-2 of its power plant as ₹ 1356.11 cr without providing any adequate data for such calculation, therefore, request of the petitioner regarding considering of ₹ 1356.11 cr should not be considered. Hence, petitioner requested to determine the aforesaid capital cost as MYT Tariff Regulation, 2010.

¶91

Commission’s View

¶92

The petitioner has sold its 65% power to Haryana through PTC. The HERC vide its order dated 23.01.2015 decided the capital cost of

¶93

project as on COD was ₹ 1235.28 crore. The petitioner challenged

¶94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 12 of 22

¶95

Page 12 of 22

¶96

the same before Hon’ble APTEL vide appeal no 117 of 2015. Hon’ble APTEL did not find any infirmity while deciding the capital cost of project, the relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “44.4 While taking note of the views indicated in the impugned order of the State Commission, we find that the State Commission has gone through the voluminous data and details submitted by Lanco, Haryana Utilities and the Consultant (E&Y) carefully and has

¶97

applied prudence check over the same and arrived at the conclusion in the right spirit. The net capital cost of Unit-2 as ₹ 1235.28 crores adopted by the State Commission for tariff computations appears to be quite reasonable and also, comparable with the net capital cost for Unit-1 of LAPL of ₹ 1236.40 crores determined by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in its order dated 27.04.2011. The worked out cost index as ₹ 4.12 crores/MW for 300 MW unit size is considered quite reasonable & attractive in the time frame of 2010-11. Hence, we conclude this issue that the State Commission has applied prudence check on the cost and other associated aspects of the project satisfactorily and undisputable.”

¶98

To ascertain the above, Commission has asked petitioner to submit

¶99

the data related to capital cost of Unit – 2, which was submitted to

¶100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 13 of 22

¶101

Page 13 of 22

¶102

HERC. Petitioner submitted the same on 03/03/2022. On prudence check, the details submitted by the petitioner is found in line with capital cost approved by HERC and subsequent upheld by Hon’ble APTEL. Accordingly, Commission has considered the capital Cost of ₹ 1235.28 crore for unit-2 as on COD for computation of tariff.”

¶103

Hence, we are in agreement with the submissions on behalf of the Appellant that there was no unreasonable or unexplained or contumacious delay in filing the tariff petitions so as to disentitle the Appellant from Carrying Cost.

¶104

Further, the conduct of the 2^nd Respondent demonstrates that it also was responsible for delay as it did not cooperate with the Appellant in getting the tariff determined by the Commission despite Appellants several letters in this regard.

¶105

In so far as data gap i.e. non filing of complete data along with the petition by Appellant, is concerned, we may say that when a petitioner approaches the Commission with a petition for determination of tariff, it files all those documents/data along with petition which, in its opinion, are relevant for the said purpose. It is for the Commission to seek more details/data from a party before it in case it finds some deficiency in the

¶106

data/documents filed along with the petition. In this case, the

¶107

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶108

Page 14 of 22

¶109

Commission sought some additional information from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2019 (even though the petition had been registered on 23.02.2018 as noted in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned order itself), which was promptly submitted by the appellant on 31.10.2019. Therefore, Appellant can’t be held responsible for late submission of additional data as sought by the Commission. The Commission has taken more than 1-1/2 year in vetting the information/data submitted by the Appellant along with petition. In these circumstances, we do not find it justified to deprive the appellant from carrying cost during the said period of time.

¶110

We may note that payment of “interest” cannot be equated to payment of penalty or fine. “Interest” is normal accretion to money when invested lawfully by the person in whose hands it is. When a person is deprived of the use his money to which he is lawfully entitled, he would have a legitimate claim for interest upon such amount of money for the period during which he was deprived of its use. In other words, any person who has enriched himself by use of the money belonging to some other person, is legally duty bound to compensate the latter by payment of interest on the said money, from the use of which he had been

¶111

deprived. Payment of interest is a necessary corollary to the return on

¶112

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶113

Page 15 of 22

¶114

money retained by a person unjustly or unlawfully. This has been explained by the Supreme Court succinctly in Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 545 by way of the following illustrations: -

¶115

“For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B. With these observations the impugned judgment is modified and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.”

¶116

In the instant case, since power was supplied by the Appellant to 2^nd Respondent from 22.06.2011 till 01.10.2012, the 2^nd Respondent should have made full payment in lieu of the same in the months of

¶117

October or November, 2012 in terms of the provisions of the PPA in this

¶118

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 16 of 22

¶119

Page 16 of 22

¶120

regard. Thus, the Appellant was deprived of use of the said amount to which he was lawfully entitled and has a legitimate claim for interest upon such amount for the period during which it has been deprived of its use.

¶121

In this context, we also find the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 18.02.2025 in Dr. Purnima Advani and Anr. v. Government of NCT and Anr. Civil Appeal

¶122

No.2643 of 2025, very material: -

¶123

“25. If on facts of a case, the doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest should follow. Restitution in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the Court or in direct consequence of a decree or order. The term “restitution” is used in three senses, firstly, return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status, secondly, the compensation for benefits derived from wrong done to another and, thirdly, compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.

¶124

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 17 of 22

¶125

Page 17 of 22

¶126

26. In Hari Chand v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) AWC 316, the Allahabad High Court dealing with similar controversy in a stamp matter held that the payment of interest is a necessary corollary to the retention of the money to be returned under order of the appellate or revisional authority. The High Court directed the State to pay interest @ 8% for the period, the money was so retained i.e. from the date of deposit till the date of actual repayment/refund.

¶127

27. In the case of O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai, JT 2007 (10) SC 76, (para 6), the facts were that the assessment orders passed in the Customs Act creating huge demands were ultimately set aside by this Court. However, during pendency of appeals, a sum of Rs.54,72,87,536/- was realized by way of custom duties and interest thereon. In such circumstances, an application was filed before this Court to direct the respondent to pay interest on the aforesaid

¶128

amount w.e.f. the date of recovery till the date of

¶129

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 18 of 22

¶130

Page 18 of 22

¶131

payment. The appellants relied upon the judgment in the case of South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2003) 8 SCC 648.

¶132

This Court explained the principles of restitution in the case of O.N.G.C. Ltd. (supra) as under:-

¶133

“Appellant is a public sector undertaking. Respondent is the Central Government. We agree that in principle as also in equity the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount deposited on application of principle of restitution. In the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly having regard to the fact that the amount paid by the appellant has already been refunded, we direct that the amount deposited by the appellant shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Reference in this connection may be made to Pure Helium Indian (P) Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission, JT 2003 (Suppl. 2) SC 596 and Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. JT 2006 (11) SC 376.”

¶134

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 19 of 22

¶135

Page 19 of 22

¶136

Thus, where there is an order for restitution by way of return or restoration/payment of some specific money or thing to its rightful owner, the direction to pay interest must follow. It is noteworthy that in the case of O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai, JT 2007 (10) SC 76 (referred by the Supreme Court in the above noted judgment), the application for payment of interest was filed for the first time before the Supreme Court during the pendency of the appeal, which was entertained and allowed by the Supreme Court.

¶137

In the case at hand, power was supplied by appellant to 2^nd respondent in the year 2011-12 for which only part payment was made by 2^nd respondent. The differential amount would be payable to the appellant after long wait of about 13 years during which period it was deprived of the used of such money to which it was lawfully entitled whereas the 2^nd respondent has been using it as per its commercial wisdom. Hence, the 2^nd respondent is liable to pay the differential amount to the appellant along with carrying cost for the entire period i.e. from the date when it become actually due in favour of the appellant till actual payment by 2^nd respondent.

¶138

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶139

Page 20 of 22

¶140

Now coming the aspect with regards to rate of carrying cost. The Commission has limited it to the rate as approved by it in the tariff orders passed in petitions filed by the State Power Companies. Intriguingly, the Commission, in its earlier order dated 01.01.2020 in petition no. 41/2017 in respect of the supply of 5% power from the same unit-2 of appellant’s power plant during financial years 2016-17 & 2017-18, has allowed carrying cost/holding cost @ 12.80% and 12.60% respectively to the appellant.

¶141

The Commission has not provided any reason at all for going contrary to its own previous order regarding the same unit-2 of same power plant. Inconsistency shown by the Commission on this aspect is not discernible and can not be approved. Accordingly, in this case also the carrying cost/holding cost ought to have been allowed at the rate at which same were allowed in the order dt. 01.01.2020 in petition no.

¶142

41/2017. We see no reason at all in making a departure therefrom.

¶143

Conclusion

¶144

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the commission can not be sustained. The same is hereby set-aside to the extent assailed in this appeal. The appeal stands allowed.

¶145

Appeal No. 148 of 2023

¶146

Page 21 of 22

¶147

The appellant is held entitled to carrying cost @ 12.8% from the

¶148

date when the tariff payable by the 2^nd respondent had become due as

¶149

per the provision of PPA till the date of actual payment by the 2^nd respondent.

¶150

Pronounced in the open court on this 15^th day of July, 2025.

¶151

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

¶152

(Sandesh Kumar Sharma) Technical Member (Electricity)

¶153

✓

¶154

REPORTABLE / NON REPORTABLE

¶155

¶156

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. 148 of 2023 Page 22 of 22

¶157

Page 22 of 22

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power Limited v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal No. 148 of 2023 of M/s. Korba Power Limited v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission & 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. 226 of 2020 & Appeal No. 146 of 2021 of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 244 of 2017, Appeal No. 293 of 2018, Appeal No. 341 of 2019 & Appeal No. 49 of 2020 of M/s. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 80 of 2018 of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. versus Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Appeal No.75 of 2023 of M/s. Sneha Kinetic Power Projects Private Limited versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited versus Damodar Velley Corporation & Anr.

Appeal No. 92 of 2017 of Nlc India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.69 of 2018, Appeal No.70 of 2018, Appeal No.71 of 2018 & Appeal No.72 of 2018 of Bses Rajdhani Power Limited versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

Appeal No. 204 of 2016 of Aravali Power Company Private Limited versus Haryana Power Purchase Center (Hppc) & Ors.

Appeal No.75 of 2023 of M/s. Sneha Kinetic Power Projects Private Limited versus Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.

Appeal No. 80 of 2018 of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. versus Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Appeal No. 244 of 2017, Appeal No. 293 of 2018, Appeal No. 341 of 2019 & Appeal No. 49 of 2020 of M/s. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 66 of 2017 of Tangedco versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.218 of 2024 of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited versus Damodar Velley Corporation & Anr.

Appeal No. 92 of 2017 of Nlc India Limited versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.