Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In the present batch of Writ petitions, the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the tariff order passed by TNERC in TP No 1 of 2013, dated 20.06.2013. And according to the Petitioner, TANGEDCO is misinterpreting the order to its advantage and causing serious financial implications to the Petitioners. Under normal circumstances, an application should have been filed before TNERC seeking for clarification. Since there was no quorum, the TNERC was not able to function during the relevant point of time and all these Writ Petitions came to be filed before this court.

C. TANGEDCO has no power or authority to alter the tariff orders issued by the TNERC under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. TANGEDCO is duty-bound to implement the orders of the TNERC and cannot on their own make any change to the applicable charges fixed by the TNERC. The instructions in the circular dated 07th September 2013 with regard to start-up power was issued without any prior approval of the TNERC and is clearly in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and totally without jurisdiction.
D. The basis of levying only consumption charges (energy charges plus energy equated demand charges) for drawl of start-up power is found in the TNERC’s Tariff Order No. 2 dated 15th May 2006.
Following the said order, start-up power was all along being charged under a single part tariff. The provisions and principles laid out in http://www.judis.nic.in the Tariff Order dated 15th May 2006 continue to be in force as the TNERC has not given any orders to change the same in later tariff orders. Therefore, through the instructions regarding start-up power in its circular dated 07th September 2013, TANGEDCO has in effect sought to re-fix the rate fixed by the TNERC, which is clearly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
G. Even if there was an ambiguity in relation to the interpretation of the tariff order, TANGEDCO ought to have approached the TNERC for clarifications. The fact that 2 Circulars interpreting the order http://www.judis.nic.in were issued differently shows that there is ambiguity. This requirement to approach TNERC for any clarification rather than taking an unilateral action has been clearly laid down by the TNERC in its order in S.M.P.No.1 of 2012 dated 02nd May 2012. The relevant portions relied upon are extracted hereunder: