THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Shri S.L. Rao, Chairman
Shri D.P. Sinha, Member
Shri G.S. Rajamani, Member
Shri A.R. Ramanathan, Member
the matter of
for purchase of power by PTC from
HIRMA Mega Power Project and sale of such power on back to back basis to
the matter of :
Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,
1115-16, Hemkunt Chambers
89, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110 019.
Southern Energy Asia -Pacific Ltd.,
(SEAP) and SEBs
following were present :-
Shri Pramod Dayal, Advocate, PTC
Shri R.K. Madan, CMD, PTC
Shri Mahendra Kumar,GM, PTC
Shri V.L. Dua, AGM PTC
Shri A.K. Maggu, Sr.Manager, PTC
Shri Sanjay Kapoor, Country Manager, SEAP
Shri Parag P. Tripathi, Sr.Advocate, SEAP
Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate, SEAP
Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Advocate, SEAP
Sanjeev Aggarwal, Fin.Analyst, SEAP
Mr.Jonathan Inmaul Linklafer, Project Counsel,
Hirma Project -do-
J.P. Chalasani, Asstt. VP, Reliance Power Ltd.
Sanie Saran, Dy.Managre, Reliance Power Ltd.
L.N. Nimawat, XEN (P&S), RSEB
S.C. Mehta, XEN (ISP), RSEB
(Date of hearing
Apropos our order dated 5th May, 2000, the petitioner,
PTC has moved an Interlocutory Application (No 20/2000) praying for
substitution of M/S Southern Energy Asia-Pacific Ltd (SEAP) incorporated
in Bermuda having its registered office at Cedar House, 41, Cedar Avenue,
Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda and having its Principal office in Hong Kong at 18th
Floor, Hong Kong Telecom Tower, Taiku Place 979 King’s Road Hong Kong
and its liaison office at 201 & 208, 2nd Floor Ashoka
Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110001 as Respondent No 1. It has
also been prayed that the validity of MOU may be taken as 22.09.2000 and
the address of the petitioner company may be substituted as 10th
Floor, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019. Shri Pramod
Dayal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has pressed the IA and
submitted that the prayers in the IA may be granted. Shri P. Tripathi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has not opposed the
prayers made in the IA. This
is without prejudice to his rights to refute
certain contentions in the application. The representative of RSEB
has no objection to the prayers made in the application. No one is present
on behalf of other SEBs who are impleaded as respondents. In view of these
circumstances, IA 20/2000 is allowed. Office is directed to carry out
necessary amendments to the petition. With this order IA 20/2000 stands
disposed of. Since no party
had any other objection, the petition stands admitted
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondents be called upon to file their responses and the Commission may
fix an early date for hearing the petition. The Commission, however,
wanted to be satisfied on the question of its jurisdiction to hear the
petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
in view of the provisions of Section 13 (a) and 13 (b) of the Electricity
Regulatory Commissions Act, read with Regulation 80 of the CERC (Conduct
of Business ) Regulations, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain
and hear the petition. He
pointed out that without approval of the tariff by the Commission, the
petitioner cannot enter into an agreement with the respondent No.1 for
supply of electricity. He further pointed out that the petitioner has made
an offer for tariff as
approved and finalised by the tariff committee appointed by the
Government. The learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 corroborated
the views of the petitioner on the question of jurisdiction and stated
that the parties are ad idem on this issue and there is no disagreement between them on
the question of jurisdiction. He
referred to para 5 of the order dated 9-3-2000 in petition No.11/2000
whereby the question of jurisdiction in such matters stood settled.
We direct that the
petitioner as well as the SEBs shall place on record their views on the
question of Commission’s jurisdiction within a week from today so that
the same would be available for anyone to inspect.
The Commission expressed its anxiety to expeditiously dispose of
the petition in view of the importance of this project in the interest of
Indian economy and observed that the proceedings in this petition should
be more of the nature of conciliation proceedings rather than adversarial
proceedings. Therefore, the Commission will endeavour to narrow down the
areas of difference between the parties.
For this purpose, the Commission proposed to appoint independent
institutions as experts to
interact with the parties with a view to resolving the differences between
them. The work of the experts
shall be supervised by the Commission and the experts
shall be reporting to the Commission of the progress of their work
from time to time as may be directed by the Commission.
We, therefore, direct the parties to furnish two panels of 3
technical and financial experts each (both Indian and international
agencies), and also specify the areas of agreement and disagreement within
10 days from today, so that the Commission could choose for appointment. The areas of disagreement shall form the terms of reference
for the experts which should
also be drafted by the petitioner in consultation with the other parties.
The costs incurred on account of the functioning of the experts
shall be equally shared by the petitioner and respondent No.1 with
liberty to petitioner to seek shares from SEBs who are respondents.
Shri K.Venugopal, Chief (Finance), CERC shall be associated with the
experts as an observer on
behalf of the Commission.
The Commission observed that in order to ensure transparency there
shall be a public notice issued in the manner to be prescribed by the
Commission so that anyone who would like to participate in the proceedings
could be facilitated to do so. The
petitioner shall submit a draft public notice within a week’s time for
approval and it shall publish the same after approval.
Shri SC. Mehta, representative of RSEB pointed out that Powergrid
is a necessary party in these proceedings since evacuation of the power
generated by respondent No.1 shall be the responsibility of Powergrid.
He prayed that directions be issued for impleading the Powergrid as
a respondent. On
consideration of the point made by Shri S.C. Mehta, we direct the
petitioner to implead Powergrid also as one of the respondents and furnish
it a copy of the petition within 2 days.
Powergrid may file its
reply by 10th June, 2000.
The counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that some of the
documents referred to by the petitioner in the petition have not been
placed on record. The
petitioner has agreed to supply to respondent No.1 the copies of the
documents as mentioned below:
Ministry of Power OM dated 21.3.2000.
Brief note submitted by the petitioner vide D.O. dated 24.12.99.
Relevant extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of
Directors of PTC dated 29.3.2000.
has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the other documents are
not available or they have not been relied upon.
Respondent No.1 is at liberty to raise this issue before the
experts to be appointed by
us. Respondent No.1 may file
its reply to the petition by 10th June, 2000.
The petition shall be listed for hearing on 13th June,
2000 at 2.30 PM.
A copy of this order be sent to all concerned including the