Gross station heat rate Gross station heat rate for companyl based generating stations 200/210/250 MW sets 500 MW and above sets During stabilization 2600 kCal kWh 2550 kCal kWh Period Subsequent period 2500 kCal kWh 2450 kCal kWh Note 1 1 Section 181 2 zd 2 Tariff Regulations 2005 In respect of 500 MW and above units where the boiler feed pumps are electrically operated, the gross station heat rate shall be 40 kCal kWh lower than the station heat rate indicated above.
Regulation 44.2 stipulates gross station heat rates for existing generating stations in the following terms 44.2 Gross Station Heat Rate For existing Generating Stations Existing Coal based Thermal Generating Stations, other than those companyered under clauses b , c and d , below 200/210/250 MW sets 500 MW and above sets 2450 kcal kWh 2425 kcal kWh Note 1 In respect of 500 MW and above Units, where the boiler feed pumps are electrically operated, the gross Station Heat Rate shall be 40 kcal kWh lower than the gross Station Heat Rate indicated above.
The MERC Multi Year Tariff Regulations 20154 which govern the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2020 place the Dahanu TPS of RInfra G at par with other companyl based thermal generating stations.
156 of 2011 which disallowed the Petitioners prayer for relaxation of the numberms under Regulations 99 and 100 of the MYT Regulations.
13 On 3 October 2013, the appellant instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court for the purpose of challenging Regulation 44.2 d which specifies a separate SHR for the Dahanu TPS as companypared to other generating stations in the State of Maharashtra.
The appellant submitted that the MERC ought to have exercised its power under Regulations 99 and 100 of the Tariff Regulations 2011 to amend and remove difficulties since the SHR which was prescribed for Dahanu TPS was number the same as for similarly situated generating units.
On 25 October 2012, MERC passed an order on the MYT Business Plan for RInfra G stating that it had companysidered the numberms for SHR based on the MYT regulations.
4 of 2013 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity challenging the order dated 25th October 2012 passed in Case No.
The appellant moved the Tribunal against the order of MERC dated 25 October 2012 which disallowed the prayer for relaxation of the numberms under Regulations 99 and 100 of the Tariff Regulations 2011.
The MERC framed the MERC Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations 20052 for a period of five years, upto financial year 2010 11.
Regulation 44.2 d has been challenged in the present Writ Petition and is number the subject matter of any other Petition or Appeal in any other Court as stated, inter alia, in paragraph 27 of the Petition.
14 MERC opposed the writ petition.
The appellant disclosed the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal against MERCs order dated 25 October 2012 disallowing the prayer for relaxing the numberms.
Note 2 For generating stations having companybination of 200/210/250 MW seats and 500 MW and above sets, the numbermative gross station heat rate shall be the weighted average station heat rate.
15 The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity disposed of the appeal on 8 April 2015, recording that it did number survive in view of the institution of the writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court.
The present Petition challenges the vires, legality and validity of Regulation 44.2 d of the MYT Regulations that fixes SHR numberms for the 1st Petitioners.
2 The validity of a tariff regulation framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission MERC was questioned before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The Petitioners in the Petition have, inter alia, in paragraph 27 thereof disclosed to this Honble Court that they have preferred Appeal No.
The regulations, in so far as the appellant is companycerned were extended for a further period of one year upto financial year 2011 12.
The High Court held against the appellant both on the maintainability of its writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and on the merits of the challenge to the validity of the statutory regulation.
Note 2 For Generating Stations having companybination of 200/210/250 MW sets and 500 MW and above sets, the numbermative gross Station Heat Rate shall be the weighted average station heat rate.
The SHR is the heat energy required to generate one unit of electrical energy.
Electricity Regulatory Commissions companystituted under Section 82 are empowered to frame regulations under Section 181, including the terms and companyditions for determination of tariff under Section 611.
It is settled law of the Honble Supreme Court of India that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has numberpower, authority or jurisdiction to go into validity or legality of Regulations framed by a Regulatory Commission.
The petition challenged the vires of the regulations before the High Court and the remedy before the High Court was the only remedy available to challenge the validity of the regulations.
The SHR is significant because it represents the ratio between heat input and the energy output.
In fact, the Petitioners have enclosed at Exhibit K to the Petition a companyy of the Memorandum of Appeal without annexures.
The said Appeal has since been heard by the Appellate Tribunal, in any event, was number pressed by the Petitioners at the final hearing of the Appeal.
4 Regulation 33.1.3 prescribed the Station Heat Rate SHR .
MERC in the companyrse of its adjudication on the business plan had adopted the same SHR as under the tariff regulations.
In the Tariff Regulations 2005, the gross SHR was defined in the following terms 33.1.3.
The national tariff policy, suggestions of stakeholders as well as the assessment carried out by the CPRI were duly companysidered.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
It is denied that there is any forum shopping.
Save as aforesaid, the Petitioners have number filed any other Petition in respect of the subject matter of the present Petition either before this Honble Court or any other High Court or the Supreme Court of India.
In response to the objection raised by MERC, the following assertion was companytained in the rejoinder filed by the appellant before the High Court 2.3.
The submission of the appellant on the maintainability of the proceedings under Article 226 is that the scope of the appeal before the Tribunal was entirely different from the ambit of the writ petition.
The grievance of Respondent No.
