Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi) There is discrimination against CPPs as compared to other generators;

(vii) The levy is arbitrary since transmission licensee is revenue neutral entity, it being unjustified since imbalances that affect the State grid are absorbed by the national grid.

13. It is also the contention of the appellants that the impugned order passed by MPERC is vitiated as a new Member of the Commission who had never heard the parties had decided the matter behind the back of the appellant, the quorum being deficient particularly in view of absence of Member from field of law, the procedure adopted in passing the order offending the basic principles of judicial procedure, the order being a product of predisposed state of mind and, hence, non est. EARLIER DISCOURSE ON PARALLEL OPERATIONS CHARGE

(emphasis supplied)

16. By judgment rendered in the matter of Indian Acrylics Ltd. v. PSERC (Appeal no. 86 of 2008 decided on 24.04.2009), this tribunal held thus:

"5) Before us it is submitted by Mr. Deepak Sabharwal that the respondent No. 2 had requested the Commission to withdraw the parallel operation charges on the ground, inter alia, that levy of these charges is against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended by Mr. Sabharwal that if the respondent No. 2 itself says that the levy of these charges is against law then the same must have been against law from the very beginning and therefore the review petition should have been allowed. Having carefully considered the submissions we find that there is no merit in the same. Mr. Sabharwal could not explain to us how the parallel operation charges are against the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003. It may be that the Board submitted a proposal to the Commission to discontinue the levy of parallel operation charges. It is also correct that the Board in its representation submitted inter alia, that levy of these charges were against provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (as can be seen from Chapter 6 of the public notice issued by the Commission for determination of ARR and tariff for the year 2006-07 in respect of Punjab State Electricity Board). This, however, does not mean that the Commission or the respondent No. 2 become bound by such a statement in respect of the legal position. Neither the Commission nor the Board is estopped from charging parallel operation charges simply because the Board expressed such an opinion about the legal position of parallel operation charges. The appellant had failed to make out any ground for review. Nor is there any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we have dismissed the appeal."

CPPs DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

74. It is the contention of the appellants that the impugned order levying POC against CPPs is discriminatory.

75. It is pointed out that the National Electricity Policy, 2005, National Tariff Policy, 2006, and the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Section 9, read with section 7, 10, 42, 61,62,79 & 86 of the Electricity Act seek to promote Captive Generation Plants by according to them additional benefits. It is argued that levy of parallel operation charge goes contrary to the very core object of the Electricity Act, 2003 which promotes captive generation of electricity.