Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
Srijan Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Centralelectricity Regulatory ... on 31 July, 2018
Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 &
IA No. 706 of 2018
COURT-II
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
ORDER IN DFR NO. 1992 OF 2018 &
IA NO. 706 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY NEW DELHI
Dated : 31st July, 2018
Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. S. D. Dubey, Technical Member
In the matter of:
Srijan Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Office No.1, Gandhi Colony,
Jaora, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh - 457 226
Through its Authohzed Signatory
Mr. Soumya Ranjan Parida ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. CentralElectricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)
The Secretary,
3rd& 4th Floor, Chanderlok Building,
36, Janpath,
New Delhi- 110001
2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED (PGCIL)
Chief Operating Officer (CTU-Planning)
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
Saudamini, Plot No.-2, Sector-29
Gurugram - 122 001, Haryana, India ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumanta Nayak
Mr. Samiron Borkataky
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Mr. Dhananjay Baijal
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar for R-1
1|Page
Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 &
IA No. 706 of 2018
Ms. Suparna Srivastava
Mr. Tushar Mathur for R-2
The Srijan Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant herein, has filed the
instant Appeal, being DFR No. 1992 of 2018, under Section 111 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New
Delhi, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed in
Case No.L-1/(3)/2009-CERC on the file of the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission, New Delhi.
The Appellant has sought the following reliefs in the instant Appeal,
being DFR No. 1992 of 2018:
(i) to set aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the
Respondent Commission vide which the Respondent Commission
approved the Detailed Procedure made under Regulation 27 of
the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of
Connectivity, Long-term Access and Medium-term Open Access
in inter-State Transmission and related matters) Regulations,
2009 for grant of Connectivity to projects based on renewable
energy sources to inter-State Transmission System;
(ii) to pass an order granting stay of the operation of the Detailed
Procedure approved by the impugned order dated 15.05.2018
passed by the Respondent Commission, till the adjudication of the
present appeal;
or in the alternative
(ii) to pass an order granting stay of the issuance of Stage II
connectivity to any applicant under the Detailed Procedure
approved by the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the
2|Page
Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 &
IA No. 706 of 2018
Respondent Commission, till the adjudication of the present
appeal;
(iii) to order maintenance of status quo in relation to the rights of the
Appellant to the Two (2) Bays being, Bay No. 219 and 222, that
has been allotted to the Appellant at the existing Bhuj Pooling
Station and which were secured by the Appellant after following
due process as per the prevailing regulation and for which Rs
1.38 cr has been paid by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2;
(iv) to pass an order directing Respondent No. 2 to immediately grant
connectivity to the Appellant for its Bhuj 2 project as was
recommended for grant on 31.07.2017 by the Respondent; and
(v) to pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem appropriate.
The Appellant has presented this Appeal for considering the following
Questions of Law:
A. Whether the Respondent Commission by passing the impugned order
has completely overlooked its own findings and observations in
MP/145/2017, under which order the Respondent No. 2 was directed to
formulate a new Detailed Procedure?
B. Whether the Respondent Commission's impugned order, in so much
as, it remits the Appellant's Bhuj 1 project to the position of a Deemed
Grantee of Stage II connectivity (Clause 5.1.2) subject to conditions in
clause 9.2, is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, since the
Appellant's Phase I connectivity, LTA for 300 MW and allotment of bays
which is now threatened to be revoked, had been obtained by diligently
3|Page
Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 &
IA No. 706 of 2018
following the requirements mandated by the Respondent No. 2 under
the erstwhile Detailed Procedure?
C. Whether the impugned order is grossly prejudicial in view of the fact the
same lends preferential support to the winners of the SECI e-reverse
auctions, who had not undertaken any of the procedures as mandated
under the erstwhile Detailed Procedure and may now fall foul of the
requirement of commissioning their project within 18 months from the
date of Letter of Award as per the terms of the bids?
D. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent Commission,
in so much as, it treats the Appellant's Bhuj2 Project in the category of
pending application (Clause 5.1.5), despite the fact that the Appellant's
application had already been recommended for grant of connectivity,
after thorough evaluation by Respondent No. 2, and the non-grant is
only owing to the Respondent No. 2's omissions, is hit by the doctrine
of legitimate expectation?
E. Whether the Respondent Commission has completely overlooked the
fact that the Appellant had mobilised all its resources by following the
procedure mandated by the Respondent No. 2 itself under the erstwhile
Detailed Procedure (approved by Respondent Commission) and had
achieved several milestones by investing substantial time and money?
F. Whether the Respondent Commission has failed to appreciate that the
retrospective application envisaged in the impugned order would lead to
irreparable financial loss, substantial time loss, and wastage of efforts
already put in to place in relation to Phase I and Phase II of the
Appellant's project?
4|Page
Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 &
IA No. 706 of 2018
G. Whether the Respondent Commission has failed to appreciate that the
Appellant does not fall in the category of a wind power generator which
had acquired connectivity and had not taken any actions towards
project development for a long period of time?
H. Whether the impugned order is in violation of Regulation 27 of
Connectivity Regulations, in so much as, the Respondent Commission
has completely ignored the requirement of the second proviso to
Regulation 27, which requires Respondent No. 2 to submit a statement
indicating as to which of the comments of stakeholders have not been
accepted by it along with reasons thereof?
ORDER
PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. PATIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. We have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sumanta Nayak, appearing for the Appellant for quite some time.
2. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, on instructions from the Appellant, submitted that, the instant Appeal, being DFR No. 1992 of 2018 & IA No. 706 of 2018, filed by the Appellant may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the Appellant to redress his grievance before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi and all the grounds urged in the instant memo of appeal may kindly be left open.
3. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, as stated above, are placed on record.
5|Page Order in DFR No. 1992 of 2018 & IA No. 706 of 2018
4. The Registry is directed to number the Appeal.
5. In view of the aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, the instant Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the Appellant to redress his grievances before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi. All the contentions urged by the Appellant in the instant memo of appeal are left open.
6. With these observations, the instant Appeal, being DFR No. 1992 of 2018, on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, stands disposed of.
[IA NO. 706 OF 2018 - Leave to file Appeal ]
7. In view of the instant Appeal on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi has been dismissed as withdrawn, on account of which, reliefs sought in IA No. 706 of 2018 does not survive for considerations and, hence, stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
8. Order accordingly.
(S.D. Dubey) (Justice N.K. Patil)
Technical Member Judicial Member
js/vt
6|Page