Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This dispute has to be resolved only by the Consumer Grievance Cell and not by the Judgment in Appeal No. 120 of 2009 State Commission. Therefore, the petition filed by the 1st Respondent before the State Commission was not maintainable.

(ii) The parallel operation charges are to be charged on the installed capacity of Captive Power Plant which has to be reckoned as the aggregate of the name plate capacity of all the generators connected to the State Electricity Board Grid in parallel operation.

21. Now let us go into the 2nd issue. According to the Appellant, the parallel operation charges are to be charged on the installed capacity of the Captive Power Plant which is to be reckoned as an aggregate of the nameplate capacity of all the generators connected to the State Electricity Board grid in parallel operation and, therefore, the State Commission is not justified in taking the operational capacity and holding that the parallel operation charges shall be for 40 MW only and not for 60 MW. The State Commission in the impugned order has decided that the capacity of the Captive Power Plant be considered for levy of parallel Judgment in Appeal No. 120 of 2009 operation charges as 40 MW. The claim of the Respondent No.1-Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. was that the capacity of the Captive Power Plant should be considered as 30 MW but the claim of the Appellant who is the successor of the State Electricity Board was that the capacity should be considered as 60 MW being sum of the installed capacity of the turbine generators, which can inject electricity into the system, although the boilers which provide steam to generate the electricity can only generate steam to the extent for generating 40 MW of electricity. In regard to this issue, the State Commission has given the detailed reasons in the impugned order for arriving at such a conclusion. They are as follows: