hereinabove that in this case, EPA remained to be executed between appellant and the MSEDCL not due to any fault / inaction on the part of appellant but on account of arbitrary as well as unjust approach of the MEDA. Further, in paragraph 19 of the impugned order, already reproduced hereinabove, the Commission has observed that in absence of a valid EPA or agreement, even though generator provides forecast / schedule asper RE F&S Regulations, such schedule cannot be accepted as there is no identified counter party to use such energy injected into the grid. However, in the instant case, the injection of power into the grid from subject WTG by the appellant and its scheduling has been duly accepted by MSEDCL without any demur for 5 years till the WTG was disconnected on 11.06.2020. Admittedly, MSEDCL did not intimate the appellant at any point of time that the energy pumped from the subject WTG into the grid cannot be accepted as the same is being done without a valid EPA. Moreover, the WTG was formally commissioned on 31.10.2015 in pursuance to the PTC issued by MSEDCL itself on the recommendation of MEDA and connected to the MSEDCL Grid at common metering point at 220/33 KV Khanapur Sub-Station. Since then, MSEDCL continued to receive energy from the WTG uninterruptedly, without asking the appellant to produce registration certificate from MEDA and to execute EPA. It is not the case of MSEDCL that it has not supplied the power received from subject WTG to its consumers for gain. In fact, for some period of time, it has
