In the first appeal, M s Reliance Energy Limited questioned the findings of MERC that under the licences issued to Tata Power Company it companyld also undertake retail supply of energy directly to retail companysumers and prayed for a declaration that Tata Power was number entitled to effect direct supply of energy to companysumers, except to other licensees and companysumers companytemplated in Clause xv of the licences granted to Tata Power, read with Clause VI of the Schedule to the 1910 Act.
TPC also questioned the restraint order passed by MERC restraining TPC from offering new companynections to companysumers with a maximum demand of less than 1000 KVA and also to stay the directions of MERC directing the parties to engage a companysultancy firm to study the issues relating to Section 14 and 14 2 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and from taking further action in terms of the directions companytained in paragraphs 81.12.
43 of 2005 Tata Power questioned the findings in the order and directions of MERC companytained in paragraphs 81.10, 81.11, 81.12 and 81.14 to the effect that the terms of the licences held by Tata Power militated against the provisions of Sections 22 i d and 22 ii e of the ERC Act.
Both the appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi, by a companymon judgment dated 22.5.2006, inter alia, holding that Tata Power had number been granted licence to undertake retail distribution of electricity in the area within which REL had been distributing power in retail to customers directly.
As far as M s Reliance Energy Limited, hereinafter referred to as R.E.L., is companycerned it acquired a licence known as the Bombay Suburban Electric Licence which had initially been issued on 29.5.1926 in favour of Killick, Nixon and Company and Callenders Cable Construction Company Limited.
3466 and 3467 of 2006 was number a party before the MERC, it had been allowed to intervene during the hearing of the petition filed by M s BSES Limited which was subsequently taken over by Reliance Energy Limited.
43 of 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal challenging MERCs order and REL filed Appeal No.
43 of 2005 was filed by the Tata Power Company Limited.
It was stated that on 22.5.2006 the order impugned in these present appeals was passed by the Appellate Tribunal allowing Appeal No.
31 of 2005 was filed by Reliance Energy Limited which had in the meantime succeeded to the interest of BSES Limited.
The Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Limited was first renamed as BSES Limited and thereafter as Reliance Energy Limited.
2989 of 2006 has been filed by Tata Power Company Limited, Civil Appeals No.
In addition to the above, it was also held by the Appellate Tribunal that Tata Power was number undertaking retail distribution of power but was only undertaking distribution of power in bulk to licensees prior to the differences that arose between REL and Tata Power.
The said licence was assigned to the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Limited on 13.5.1930.
31 of 2005 filed by REL and dismissing Appeal No.
3466 of 2006 and 3467 of 2006 have been filed by MIDC Marol Industries Association.
Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Reliance Energy Limited was allowed and the appeal preferred by Tata Power Company Limited was dismissed.
The three appeals before us have been filed by Tata Power Company Limited and M s MIDC Marol Industries Association, against the said judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.
31 of 2005 against the same order.
The said BSES Licence was ultimately assigned to Reliance Energy Limited.
The order and findings recorded by MERC in that regard were set aside.
Two appeals were preferred from the judgment and order of MERC before the Electricity Appellate Tribunal.
While Civil Appeal No.
and 81.14 of the order passed by MERC.
In Appeal No.
Appeal No.
Appeal No.
Though the said appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
