Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.8 As per the revised RFP, the bid deadline was 21.02.2008. Accordingly, the cut-off date was 14.02.2008 (i.e., 7 days before the deadline). Adani submitted its bid for supply of 1320 MW power to MSEDCL specifying Lohara Coal Blocks (captive coal mine) as the fuel source for part of the contracted capacity i.e. 800 MW capacity out of 1320 MW. Along with its bid, a copy of MoC's allocation letter dated 06.11.2007 was attached by Adani which qualified as the 'comfort letter' with respect to source of fuel, as per the bid requirements.

(j) Reliance has been placed on the Energy Watchdog Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which laid down that the policy decisions issued or notified by the GoI which have an adverse impact on the coal supply, have the force of law and entitles the affected generators to restitution. Further, the MoP vide its Policy Direction dated 16.04.2015 under Section 107 of the Electricity Act, 2003 directed CERC to treat allocation of coal block under Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014 as change in law for already concluded PPAs under case-1 to enable downward revision in tariff. Hence, the corollary would be that if the allocated coal block is cancelled then the tariff will be revised upward under change in law. Further the MoP amended the Tariff Policy in 2016 to, inter-alia, provide for a pass-through of fuel cost on account of the failure of GoI or its instrumentalities to provide the assured coal supply. It is submitted that the word "assured quantity" used in revised Tariff Policy, 2016 covers cases where captive coal mines have been de-allocated for no fault of the allottees and also the assurances given under NCDP, 2007 dated 18.10.2007 for supply of coal from Coal India Limited.

(e) The mandate is to compensate the generator for the entire period, till the shortfall continues, and such compensation cannot be capped to any trigger levels has now been settled by this Tribunal in the Adani Rajasthan Judgment.

(f) Contractual remedy under FSA will not restitute the generators to the same economic position. Since Adani had to rely on alternate sources for procuring coal, MSEDCL's contention regarding contractual dispute between Adani and fuel supplier ought to be rejected. Adani would have never relied on any fuel supplier, in case the captive coal mine i.e. Lohara Coal Blocks would have been available. Further, the statutory documents mentioned above and Energy Watchdog Judgment were delivered while the remedy available under the FSA was known, yet restitution was not restricted. This Tribunal in the Adani Rajasthan Judgment has already held that such contractual remedy is not appropriate.