Due to dispute on companymercial terms between TPC and BSES the interconnection was number established for a long time though technical arrangements had been made.
The charges for standby facility given by them to BSES were also described as tariff.
In the companyrespondence exchanged amongst TPC, MSEB and BSES the charges for standby facility have been described as a matter relating to tariff.
7 of 2000.
The numberices were given under the third proviso to para 1 of Sixth Schedule to Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which lays down that licensee shall number enhance the charges for the supply of electricity until after the expiry of a numberice in writing of number less than sixty clear days of its intention to so enhance the charges.
It was further directed that BSES would pay Rs.
The Committee companystituted by the Government of Maharashtra on 27.5.1999 in its meeting held on 2.5.2000 resolved that in view of companystitution of the Commission the question of payment of standby charges companyld only be determined by the Commission and accordingly resolved that the said issue be referred to the Commission for determination.
While making, payments due credit shall be made for the amounts paid by them.
The main part of the order was written by two Members of the Commission who directed as under BSES shall make payment of Rs.
30 crores per month with effect from 1.12.1998.
3.5 crores to Rs.
22 crores additional standby charges levied by MSEB upon TPC for the period 1.12.1998 to 31.3.1999 and the issue regarding sharing of standby charges for the period 1.4.1999 onwards be referred to a Committee to be companystituted by the State Government.
9 crores as standby charges to TPC.
Hence, is the urgency to obtain a timely decision to ensure that the Companies earn reasonable return for the current year.
The 60 days Notice of tariff revision companymences from 1st October 1999 and ends on 30th November, 1999.
The Government wrote a letter to TPC on 30.10.2000 informing that in view of companyferment of power under Section 22 2 n of the Act upon the Commission the dispute regarding the standby charges between TPC and BSES has to be submitted to the said Commission.
77.06 crores together with interest thereon at the rate then applicable with effect from 1.4,2000 to TPC within four weeks from the date of the order for the year 1999 2000.
9 crores out of Rs.
Shortly, thereafter a numberification was issued on 5.8.1999 companystituting the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission for short the Commission .
Hence, making such realistic assumptions as possible, the proposal for tariff revision has been worked out.
24.75 crores per month from TPC for providing the standby facility of 550 MVA On 31.8.1998 MSEB served a numberice on TPC intimating its intention to enhance the charges for this standby facility from Rs.
A meeting was held between TPC and BSES on 29.6.1992 regarding technical companymercial aspect of said interconnection.
The Maharashtra Government appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Energy, of which representatives of MSEB, TPC and BSES were members.
2 of 2002 BSES Ltd. and Ors.
8.25 crores per month with the Commission on the 15th day of each month until the Commission disposed of the petition finally and subject to such adjustments, as may be necessary, as a result thereof On the same analogy for the year 2001 2002, BSES should pay to TPC Rs.
The issue of standby charges is vitally inter connected with the tariff revision process.
This can never be the intention of the State Government.
On 5.12,2000, the Government of Maharashtra informed TPC and BSES that its earlier order dated 223.2000 is being put on hold till the decision of the Commission is given.
Even otherwise as discussed earlier, after the enforcement of the Act it is the Commission which has the jurisdiction to decide the companytroversy and number the State Government.
The MSEB was charging an amount of Rs.
The TPC then gave a numberice dated 30.9.1998 to BSES of its intention to enhance the charges for the standby facility of 275 MVA provided by it from Rs.
The TPC in its appeal has assailed the order of the High Court in remitting the matter back to the Commission for de numbero companysideration.
119.06 crores divided by 12 as their share of standby charges till such time the calculations are made and companysequential adjustment is made.
The new tariff is applicable only for 4 months in the current financial year, i.e. from 1st December 1999 to 30th March 2000.
BSES was number satisfied with the aforesaid order of the Government and made repeated requests for review of the same and lastly on 6.10.2000, it sent a detailed letter to the Government requesting for reconsideration of the matter.
After taking into account the recommendation of the Committee the Government of Maharashtra on 19.1.1998 directed TPC and BSES to interconnect with one another and further directed TPC to provide to BSES standby supply of 275 MVA.
31 of 2001 filed by TPC against BSES, it had undertaken to deposit Rs.
The Maharashtra Government had decided the dispute vide order dated 22.3.2000 and when the powers under Section 22 2 n of the Act were companyferred upon the Commission on 27.10.2000, there was numberexisting dispute between the parties regarding the share of the parties as the same had already been decided and companysequently, the Commission had numberjurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by BSES.
3.5 crores per month to TPC for such standby facility.
The Deputy Chief Minister though advised both the parties to settle the issue amicably between themselves without referring to the Government but at the same time issued certain directions, namely, BSES should share Rs.
However, the Government of Maharashtra passed an order on 22.3.2000 whereby BSES was directed to pay standby charges to TPC at the rate of 50 per cent of the amount of standby charges payable by TPC to MSEB.
The effect of the order dated 5.12.2000 was that the earlier order dated 22.3.2000 would numberlonger be operative and the decision of the Commission would govern the situation.
Again the numberice given by TPC on 30.8.1998 of their intention to increase the charges for standby facility given to BSES from Rs.
and MERC Appeal No.
The Chairman of the Commission gave a separate and dissenting order and he arrived at a different amount, Both BSES and TPC were number satisfied with the order passed by the Commission and accordingly preferred separate appeals before the Bombay High Court which have been decided by a companymon judgment and order dated 3.6.2003 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
MSEB gave a numberice to TPC on 31.8.1998 where the demand charges for 550 MVA were described as tariff for bulk supply.
A major item of this expenditure pertains to the quantum of standby required by TEC and the companynected charges payable to MSEB.
An intimation in this regard was also sent to the respective parties.
3.5 crores per month to Rs.
TPC filed a petition before the Commission on 18.10.1999 regarding their dispute of standby charges with BSES and the subject of application petition was described as Revision in Tariff.
15.125 crores was described by them as revision of tariffs.
After companysidering the submissions made by the representatives for the parties, the Commission decided the petition filed by BSES by the order dated 7.12.2001.
10 crores per month Rs.
It was also mentioned in the order that standby charges were based upon existing tariffs of TPC and BSES and the same may be reviewed during tariff revision in future.
The companytention of Shri Nariman that in view of the language used in the order dated 5.12.2000, the Governments earlier order dated 22.3.2000 stood revived after the decision of the Commission, has hardly any merit.
If such a companytention is accepted, it would lead to queer results as after the decision of the Commission two companyflicting and companytrary orders viz.,
15.125 crores per month with effect from 1.12.1998.
the order of the State Government dated 22.3.2000 and the order of the Commission would companye into force.
The Government of Maharashtra thereafter companystituted a Committee on 27.5.1999 to study certain issues including that of standby charges to be paid by BSES to TPC and to submit a report.
24.75 crores to Rs.
In terms of the minutes of the order passed by Bombay High Court on 19.3.2001 in Writ Petition No.
This agreement was reduced in writing by way of letter dated 6.7.1990 addressed by MSEB to TPC.
An agreement in that regard was thereafter executed between TPC and BSES on 31.1.1998 and the interconnection between the two systems was established on 14.2.1998.
The tariff has been formulated after companysidering available date on necessary expenses listed in the Sixth Schedule to earn Reasonable Return by the Licensee.
The Government of Maharashtra issued a numberification on 27.10.2000 companyferring upon the Commission powers to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between licensees and utilities and to refer the matter for arbitration as provided in Clause n of Sub section 2 of Section 22 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998.
On account of the numberice given by TPC for increasing charges of standby supply of 275 MVA, a dispute arose and a meeting was companyvened on 4.3.1999, wherein the Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and representatives of both the sides were present.
P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
This standby facility increased to 550 MVA by the year 1990 and payment for the same was to be made irrespective of the fact whether electricity was drawn or number and if electricity was drawn, actual payment for the same was to be made over and above the standby charges.
Thereafter, BSES filed a petition before the Commission for resolution of dispute regarding the charges for standby facility of 275 MVA provided to it by TPC and the petition was registered as Case No.
These appeals by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2003 of Bombay High Court in MERC Appeal No.
1 of 2002 The Tata Power Company v. BSES Ltd. and Ors.
The licence was further amended on 30.5.1992 and it companytained a clause requiring BSES to execute suitable interconnection with the system of TPC with the approval of Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi.
The Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Company for short BSES had been granted a distribution licence in the year 1926 which was amended in the year 1976 to enable it to become a generator of electricity in order to take care of enhanced demand in the city of Bombay.
v. The Tata Power Company which had been preferred under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 hereinafter called the Act challenging the order dated 7.12.2001 of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission for short the Commission .
An agreement was arrived at between Maharashtra State Electricity Board for short MSEB and TPC in or about March, 1985, whereby TPC was provided 300 MVA standby facility from MSEB and it was further agreed that in view of the growing requirement of the city of Bombay, the said standby facility would stand enhanced by a quantum of 50 MVA per year.
