Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i. To answer these questions, we need to analyse the MSPGCL Judgement, Impugned Order, Tariff Regulations 2009 and other relevant material placed on record before this Tribunal. Let us first examine the findings of this Tribunal in the MSPGCL Judgement. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below:

"7.3. The Tariff Regulations of the State Commission do not specify any benchmark norms for prudence check of the capital cost. The Central Commission Tariff Regulations, 2009 for prudence check of capital cost provide for the following:

"(2) The capital cost admitted by the Commission after prudence check shall form the basis for determination of tariff:

Provided that in case of the thermal generating station and the transmission system, prudence check of capital cost may be carried out based on the benchmark norms to be specified by the Commission from time to time:

A. No. 175 of 2015 & IA No. 647 of 2017 Provided further that in cases where benchmark norms have not been specified, prudence check may include scrutiny of the reasonableness of the capital expenditure, financing plan, interest during construction, use of efficient technology, cost over-run and time over-run, and such other matters as may be considered appropriate by the Commission for determination of tariff".

The Central Commission has also not laid down any benchmark norms for prudence check, but its Regulations only indicate the area of prudence check including cost overrun and time overrun. The State Commission has not examined the reasons for delay in commissioning of the project and attributed the entire time overrun related cost with respect to the contractual schedule agreed with BHEL to the Appellant. In our view, this is not prudence check. In the absence of specific regulations, we will now find answer to the question raised by us relating prudence check of time overrun related costs.