Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 62 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Essar Power Limited vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 16 December, 2011
39. In the above circumstances, we are not called upon to go into the
propriety, legality, fairness or justness of the process of negotiation which
was undertaken, it having resulted in the price of Rs.7.02 being agreed
upon and approved by the State Commission, by order dated 21.11.2017.
We only note that under the RE Competitive Bidding Guidelines, Bid
Evaluation Committee was constituted by the procurers (clause 6.3) which
had the authority to reject all price bids if the rates quoted were not aligned
to prevailing market rates (clause 6.8), the said Bid Evaluation Committee
having confirmed in its recommendations that the bidding process had
abided by the RE Guidelines and the terms of RfP, it being a transparent
process, such views having been recorded by the State Commission in its
order dated 22.02.2017. We also note that State Commission was
conscious of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Energy
Watchdog v. CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80, to the effect that it is not within the
powers of the regulatory commissions to go behind the reasonability or
Appeal nos.307 of 2018 & 275 of 2019 Page 26 of 33
viability of tariff discovered in a transparent bidding process, this view
having also been expressed by this tribunal in judgment dated 16.12.2011
in the case of Essar Power Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory
Commission and Anr. (supra), the options available to the Commission
being to either adopt or reject the tariff depending upon the answer to the
issue as to whether bid process was in accord with the bid guidelines,
transparent and as per the statutory framework. We wish to say no more
at this stage in the present proceedings since the scope and width of the
power of the regulatory commission to tinker with the bid discovered tariff
under section 63 of Electricity Act, will have to be examined in the direct
challenge to the order dated 21.11.2017 in proceedings arising out of other
pending appeals.
M/S Sukhbir Agro Energy Ltd vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 29 June, 2020
12. At the hearing, we were informed that there are certain other appeals
presented by entities included amongst those nine bidding companies as
were granted the tariff of Rs.7.02 per kWh by the State Commission's
order dated 21.11.2017, such other appeals including appeal no.88/2018
of M/s Sukhbir Agro Energy Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory
Commission & Ors., the contentions raised therein essentially being
founded on the scope of intervention in the bid quoted tariff by the
Regulatory Commission in the adoption proceedings under section 63 of
Appeal nos.307 of 2018 & 275 of 2019 Page 7 of 33
Electricity Act, 2003. Conscious as they are that the said nine other
generators (suppliers) have been availing of the tariff of Rs.7.02/kWh
uniformly applied to them, upon their selection having been approved, in
proceedings arising out of the same matter (case no.1110/2016) taken out
under section 63 of Electricity Act by the procurers (UPPCL and
UPNEDA), the appellants in the two captioned matters at hand, though
contending that the tweaking of the bid quoted price by the Commission
was inappropriate and incorrect, submitted through their respective
counsel that they would press presently only for parity, reserving their right
to press for parity by adoption of bid quoted price in the event the appeals
of the other entities covered by the order dated 21.11.2017 were to
succeed.
M/S Shalivahana Green Energy Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 7 December, 2018
In this context,
we may refer to such view taken by this tribunal in judgment dated
07.12.2018 in M/s Shalivahana Green Energy Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (appeal no.229/2016).
1