THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Shri S.L. Rao, Chairman
In the matter of
Proposal for purchase of power by PTC
from HIRMA Mega Power Project and sale of such power on back to
back basis to SEBs .
In the matter of :
The following were present :-
Shri R.K.Mehta, Advocate, PTC
of hearing 13-6-2000)
31st May, 2000 we had directed the petitioner as well as SEBs
to place on record their views on the question of Commission’s
jurisdiction in this matter. The
petitioner has filed a brief to that effect.
The Commission also directed the petitioner to submit a draft
public notice for approval so as to facilitate public participation in the
A draft notice has been filed by the petitioner.
The draft will be considered in due course.
It was further directed that Powergrid may be impleaded as a
respondent in the present proceedings.
It has been informed on behalf of the petitioner that a copy of the
petition has been served on Powergrid who is to file its reply.
A letter has been received from Powergrid and has been brought to
the notice of the Commission wherein Powergrid has requested for time for
filing its reply.
Powergrid may do so by 30th June, 2000.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to file an amended memo of
The Commission proposed to appoint independent institutions as
experts to interact with the parties with a view to resolve the
differences between them.
The experts were to function under the overall supervision of the
Commission and report to the Commission of the progress of their work from
time to time.
Accordingly, the parties were directed to furnish panels of
technical and financial experts and also to specify the areas of agreement
and disagreement so that the Commission may decide on the appointment of
It was made clear that areas of disagreement shall form the terms
of reference for the experts to be appointed by the Commission.
The petitioner through its affidavit filed on 12th June,
2000 has named CEA, ASCI and IGIDR. A letter dated 12th June,
2000 has also been received on behalf of respondent No.1 giving names of
certain international institutions as financial and technical experts, in
view of our directions as contained in the order dated 31st
We do not find any agreement between the parties on the suggested
names. The parties have therefore requested that they may be allowed some
more time to arrive at some agreed names as well as the terms of
Although we are convinced that the issue needs to be handled with
great promptitude and despatch, in view of the request made by the
parties, we are inclined to grant further time to mutually discuss the
names of financial and technical experts who may be assigned the job and
bring about reconciliation and narrow down the differences between the
parties on the points on which differences still persist.
The parties agreed that the experts appointed should not have been
associated with the project at any stage, and also that if the experts
have had any dealings with any of the parties in the past in any other
transaction, it should be disclosed to the other party.
It has also been agreed that the experts to be named shall be as
far as possible, non-profit institutions/organisations, preferably Indian,
which may have tie-ups with international institutions of repute, or may
be able to establish tie-ups with such institutions.
Costs would be shared between petitioner and respondent-1 as
The terms of reference shall be agreed between all parties.
In view of the request made by the parties, the matter is adjourned
to 21st June, 2000
at 2.30 PM.
Petitioner shall consult the SEBs on the panel of experts.
The SEBs concerned may also express their views at the time of the
Us] [Extracts of Acts]
[Regulations][Orders] [Publications] [Power Data] [Annual Report]
[Schedule of Hearings][Bulletin Board] [Jobs] [Contact Us] [Search] [Links] .