Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

...

The Act, 1966 clearly regarded the BBMB as a generation company and spoke of distribution to the Electricity Boards. The argument of Mr. Ramachandran that the word 'supply' as is meant in section 2(70) of the Act, 2003 cannot be attributed to the word 'supply' as used in the Act,1966 and, therefore, the BBMB does not come under the jurisdiction of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission is fallacious because unlike the word 'supply' as has been defined in the Act, 2003, there is no definition of the word supply either in the Act, 1910 or in the Act, 1948. There was no occasion on the part of the author of the Statute to import the idea of 'supply' of Electricity Act, 2003 in the Act, 1966. Therefore, there could not be conveyance of the idea of sale in the Act, 1966. The idea of sale of the Act, 2003 has been necessitated because of unbundling of all the functions and making all the functionaries as Corporations with allowance of private players joining in the venture of electricity business. Therefore, the absence of the idea of sale as is used in the Act, 2003 in the 1966 Act does not make the Central Commission not available with the BBMB. In most of the States, the State Electricity Board has been unbundled with the Govt. creating separate corporate entities for generation, transmission and distribution. Now, the functions of the Central Govt. under the 1966 Act are relatable to the Central Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003. As a Govt. company as the BBMB now is, it cannot escape scrutiny and regulatory jurisdiction of the Central Commission. The BBMB cannot be compared to that of a contractor as is contended in the written note of argument. Though there is no actual sale by the BBMB and supply is made in terms of the Act, 1966 such supply does not become absolutely divorced from any consideration. The provision of section 79 (5) of the Act, 1966 will apply also to the Beas Project mutatis mutandis in terms of subsection (5) of section 80. Thus expenses including salaries and allowances of the staff and other amounts to meet expenses shall have to be provided to the BBMB and the amount shall be apportioned having regard to the benefit of the States / Boards as the Central Govt. may specify. Therefore, there are operation and maintenance expenses, renovation and modernisation expenses which are associated with components of tariff and it is the BBMB that has to meet all these expenses. Regulation of these expenses so far is not the function of any of the State Commission because it is an inter-state Central Govt. owned generation entity. ...