Review Petition No. 2/RP/2012 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 126/MP/2011. Case: M/s. Noida Power Company Limited Vs U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited (UPPTCL) and Ors.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
| Case Number | Review Petition No. 2/RP/2012 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 126/MP/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri M.G. Ramachandran, Advocate, Shri Gautam Ghosh, NPCL, Shri Sarnath Ganguly, NPCL, Shri Mayuri Patel, NPCL and For Respondents: Shri Sunil, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Arthendumauli, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri Sanjeev Bhasker, UPPTCL, Shri B.K. Saxena, UPPTCL, Shri Taruna A. Prasad, UPPTCL, Shri ... |
| Judges | Pramod Deo, Chairperson, S. Jayaraman, Member, V.S. Verma, Member and M. Deena Dayalan, Member |
| Issue | Electricity Law |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2013 |
| Court | Central Electricity Regulatory Commission |
Order:
-
Noida Power Company Limited (NPCL) filed Petition No. 126/MP/2012 seeking a direction to Northern Regional Load Despatch Centre (NRLDC) to charge the Short Term Open Access (STOA) Transmission Charges for Uttar Pradesh @ ` 50/m WH instead of ` 80/MWh from the petitioner for all inter-State open access bilateral transaction and to levy such charges strictly in accordance with the tariff order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Regulatory Commission (UPERC). The Commission by its order dated 28.11.2011 held that the rates for STOA charges for Uttar Pradesh were specified by the UPERC and the same rate, i.e. @ ` 50/MWh has to be charged instead of rate specified in the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Open Access in inter State transmission) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2008 regulations"), which was to be made applicable only if the State Commission had not specified the rates. The Respondents 1 to 4 (hereinabove) were directed to refund the excess amount charged from the petitioner on account of application of incorrect STOA charges for Uttar Pradesh. Aggrieved by this order, NPCL has filed the instant review petition seeking review of the Commission's order dated 28.11.2011 in Petition No. 126/MP/2011. The Review Petitioner has submitted that though the Commission has directed the Respondents 1 to 4 to refund the excess amount charged from the Review Petitioner during 1.10.2009 to 30.4.2011, the Commission has not granted the interest on the excess amount charged, as prayed by the Review Petitioner. The Review Petitioner has made the following prayers:-
(i) Review the order dated 28.11.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 126/MP/2011 titled as Noida Power Company Limited Versus U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited (UPPTCL) and others limited to the grant of interest to the Review Petitioner;
(ii) Direct the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 to refund to the Review Petitioner the excess amount charged by them on account of STOA Charges since 1.10.2009 till 28.11.2011 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of excess amount so charged till the date of actual payment; and
(iii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to refund the said excess amount within 15 days of the passing of the order.
-
The Review Petition was admitted by the Commission on 14.2.2011 and the respondents were directed to file their replies. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a combined reply on 22.5.2012. Arguments of both...
To continue reading
Request your trial