Review Petition No. 17/RP/2012 in Petition No. 279/2009. Case: NTPC Ltd. Vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and Ors.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
| Case Number | Review Petition No. 17/RP/2012 in Petition No. 279/2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Ajay Dua, Shri Rohit Chhabra, Shri Shailendra Singh, Shri Shankar Saran, Shri G.K. Dua, Shri Sameer Aggarwal, Shri S.K. Jain and Shri A.K. Bishoi and For Respondents: Shri R.B. Sharma, Advocate and Shri Manish Garg |
| Judges | Pramod Deo, Chairperson, S. Jayaraman, Member (J) and V. S. Verma, Member (J) |
| Issue | Electricity Law |
| Judgement Date | April 02, 2013 |
| Court | Central Electricity Regulatory Commission |
Order:
1. Petition No. 279/2009 was filed by the petitioner, NTPC for approval of generation tariff in respect of Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station, Stage-III (210 MW) (hereinafter referred to as 'the generating station') for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014, based on the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 ('the 2009 Tariff Regulations"). The Commission by its order dated 25.5.2012 approved the annual fixed charges for the generating station for the period 2009-14 as under:
(` in lakh)
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 25.5.2012 limited to the issue of "not allowing capitalization of spares up to the allowed limit".
2. The matter was heard on 25.9.2012 on 'admission' and the Commission by its order dated 3.10.2012 admitted the review petition and directed issuance of notice to the respondents. Replies to the petition have been filed by UPPCL (respondent no. 1) and BRPL (respondent no. 6) and the petitioner has filed its rejoinder to the said replies.
3. In accordance with Rule 1 Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a person aggrieved by an order may apply for a review under the following circumstances:
(a) On discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at a time when the order was made;
(b) An error apparent on the face of the record;
(c) For any other sufficient reason.
4. Heard the parties present and examined the documents on record. We now proceed to consider the issue raised in this petition as discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
Disallowance of capital spares after cut-off-date
5. The claim of the petitioner in the main petition for capitalization of an expenditure of `802.62 lakh during 2009-10 and `900.00 lakh during 2011-12 towards supply of Rotors of HP and IP Turbines were not allowed by the Commission in its order dated 25.5.2012 observing as under:
33. The date of commercial operation of the generating station is 1.1.2007 and the petitioner is aware that all works within the original scope of the project need to be completed within the cut-off date, in terms of the provisions of the 2004 Tariff Regulations. It is observed that the petitioner had placed orders for spare rotors only after the commercial operation of the generating station, and it had full knowledge of the frequent delays on the part of M/s. BHEL to supply the power plant equipments, after the placement of the order. This, according to us, indicates that the petitioner has not taken appropriate monitoring and project management measures, to complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial