R.P. No. 22 of 2016 in Appeal No. 34 of 2016. Case: Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited Vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)
| Case Number | R.P. No. 22 of 2016 in Appeal No. 34 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjay Sen, Sr. Adv., S. Venkatesh, Varun Singh and Shashank Khurana, Advs. and For Respondents: Mandakini Ghosh and Ritika Singhal, Advs. |
| Judges | Ranjana P. Desai, J. (Chairperson) and I.J. Kapoor, Member (T) |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 120(2)(f) |
| Judgement Date | February 15, 2017 |
| Court | APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) |
Judgment:
I.J. Kapoor, Member (T)
-
This Review Petition is being filed by Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Review Petitioner/Appellant") under Section 120(2)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for review of the judgment dated 22.08.2016 of this Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 34 of 2016 filed by the Appellant. The Review Petitioner has prayed for the following;
a) "That the Tribunal be pleased to review and set aside its judgment dated 22.08.2016.
b) That the Tribunal be pleased to restore the Appeal No. 34 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner to the file/record of this Tribunal and re-hear the same.
c) For such further or other reliefs as circumstances and nature of the case may require."
1.1 On, 05.01.2011, a Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA") was executed between the Appellant and the Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited ("Respondent No. 3") and Respondent No. 3 was obligated to purchase a total of 65% capacity of project being developed by the Review Petitioner.
1.2 On 20.07.2011, another PPA was executed between the Appellant and Government of Madhya Pradesh ("GOMP") for procurement of power on variable charges basis and GOMP nominated Respondent No. 3 on behalf of Government of Madhya Pradesh to receive 5% net power at variable charge/cost to be determined by the State Commission.
1.3 From August, 2012 to May, 2015, the Respondent No. 3 through Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited ("Respondent No. 2") and State Load Despatch Centre, Madhya Pradesh ("Respondent No. 4") has been scheduling the minimum of approximate 140 MW from the respective unit. That means, Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have been scheduling considerable part of the contracted capacity i.e. both units - 350 MW (65% + 5%). For balance 30% capacity, there is no long term contract.
1.4 The technical minimum level of operation for the Appellant's power plant is 55% load i.e. about 140 MW. Therefore, the off-take between the above mentioned period was as per the technical minimum generation capacity of the Appellant's power plant.
1.5 On 22.05.2015, the Respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the Respondent No. 2 and 4 inter alia stating as follows;
"It is worth to mention the installed capacity has achieved upto 15100 MW. The total system demand is being met at present about 7000 MW average. It is expected that the demand may go upto 7500-7700 MW during remaining month May, 15. In view of the new MOD implemented from 22nd May, 2015, it is observed that the variable cost & position of generating units have been changed which may have to be keep in consideration while backing down of power available from the DC on bar of generating units. In case of thermal power generating units the backing down of power is to limited upto 70% in case of capacity below 250 MW and 60% in case of above 250 MW, as intimated from the SLDC and WRLDC in past. As such...
To continue reading
Request your trial