Appeal No. 71 Of 2017 & Ia No. 105 Of 2017 Appeal No. 72 Of 2017 & Ia No.107 Of 2017 Appeal No. 73 Of 2017 & Ia No. 103 Of 20. Case: 1. Ms. Kamuthi Renewable Energy Ltd. 2. Ms. Ramnad Solar Power Ltd. 3. Ms. Adani Green Energy (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)

Case NumberAppeal No. 71 Of 2017 & Ia No. 105 Of 2017 Appeal No. 72 Of 2017 & Ia No.107 Of 2017 Appeal No. 73 Of 2017 & Ia No. 103 Of 20
CounselFor Appellant(s) : Ms. Poonam Verma Ms. Nishtha Kumar Counsel and For Respondents: Mr. Sethu Ramalingam and Mr. S.Vallinayagam, Advs.
JudgesMrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Section 86(1)(f)
Judgement DateMay 16, 2017
CourtAPTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)


Since all these matters are similar and involve the same issue, they can be disposed of by this common order.

The Appellants in the above appeals have challenged file noting/order dated 20.10.2016 signed by the Secretary and two other officers of the Tamilnadu Electricity Regulatory Commission ("the State Commission"). The file noting reads as under:

"The Petition has been filed u/s.86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the prayer is to stop backing down instructions and compensation due to backing down instructions. Thus, it is a dispute between licensee and Generating Company. Hence, this has to be classified only as D.R.P. Further a similar petition praying for "Must Run" status for wind filed by Green Infra (D.R.P. No.28/2012) has been classified as D.R.P. Therefore, comply within 15 days."

The above file noting has been treated by the Appellants as an order. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the impugned file noting/order, it is observed that the petitions are filed under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act ("the said Act"). The statement is not correct because the petitions are also filed under Section 86(1)(e) of the said Act.

Counsel submitted that the impugned noting/order wrongly converts the petitions filed by the Appellants involving regulatory powers into dispute resolution petitions ignoring the settled position of law which is in favour of the Appellants.

Counsel for the State Commission has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals. He submitted that the file noting is not an order. He has drawn our attention to the TNERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 ("the said Regulations"). He has taken us to Regulations 20(5), (6), (7) and (8), which read thus: "

20. Presentation and security of the pleadings, etc.

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) xxx

(4) xxx

(5) The designated officer may decline to accept any petition which does not conform to the provisions of the Act or the Regulations or directions given by the Commission or otherwise defective or which is presented otherwise than in accordance with the Regulation or directions of the Commission. Provided no petition shall be refused for defect in the pleadings or in the presentation, without giving an opportunity to the person filing the petition to rectify the defect within the time which may be given for the purpose. The designated officer shall advise in writing the person filing the petition of the defects in the...

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