I.A. No. 36/2012 in Petition No. 140/MP/2012. Case: 1. Jaiprakash Power Venture Limited, 2. PTC India Limited Vs 1. PTC India Ltd. & Others, 2. Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case NumberI.A. No. 36/2012 in Petition No. 140/MP/2012
JudgesDr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson, Shri S. Jayaraman, Member, Shri V.S. Verma, Member and Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Section 94
Judgement DateOctober 08, 2012
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order:

(New Delhi)

  1. The applicant, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (JPVL) has filed the Interlocutory Application seeking discharge/deletion of its name as a respondent from the main petition filed by PTC India Limited on the ground that it is not a necessary or proper party in a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 relating to the long term open access charges under the Bulk Power Transmission Agreement between them. The Applicant has submitted that the Petitioner has sought exemption from payment of long term open access charges to Respondent No. 1 under the BPTA and from payment of any penalty/compensation. In the alternative the Petitioner has prayed that JPVL should be directed to pay the long term open access charges on the ground that JPVL has taken a stand that the PPA is void. The Applicant has submitted that the second prayer sought in the petition is not maintainable as it is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to shift its obligations under the BPTA on to JPVL.

  2. The Applicant has submitted that JPVL is not a party to the BPTA between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1. The BPTA is an independent commercial agreement between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 and it has no reference to the PPA between the Petitioner and JPVL. The fact that the Petitioner entered into the BPTA for evacuation of 704 MW from JPVL's Karcham Project will not make JPVL a party to the BPTA. The Applicant has further submitted that the PPA between the Petitioner and JPVL clearly stipulated that the delivery point of power by JPVL to PTC is at the generation bus bar which is situated in Himachal Pradesh and it is the responsibility of PTC to evacuate the said power at its own cost and accordingly, JPVL has no obligation under law to pay the transmission charges levied on the Petitioner under the BPTA. The Applicant has submitted that the dispute pending before the Delhi High Court regarding the PPA is irrelevant to the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to which JPVL is not a party. The Applicant has also submitted that the Writ Petition (C) No. 3627 of 2012 was filed by the Petitioner only against PGCIL as Respondent No. 1 and JPVL was not a party. Even the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 4.6.2012 has clearly noted that the disputes raised in the said petition were between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. The Applicant cannot initiate proceedings to indirectly recover long term open access charges from JPVL without any cause of action against JPVL. Accordingly, the Applicant has prayed to be deleted/discharged as Respondent No. 2 from the array of parties in the Petition as it is not a necessary and/or proper party.

  3. The Petitioner in its reply filed vide affidavit dated 24.7.2012 has opposed the application of JPVL for deletion as a party to the present petition. The Petitioner has submitted that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT