|
2.0
|
Procedural history SOUTHCO's application dt.21.10.2000 was duly
examined for the completeness of the filing. On examination, it was observed that the
filing was generally in order and the application was treated as complete and admitted. |
|
2.1
|
The applicant was directed to publish a public notice on the proposed
retail supply tariff, as per the format approved by the Commission so as to inform the
public and to invite objections from the interested persons.
|
|
2.1.1
|
Notice was published in several local newspapers on two consecutive days
in terms of Clause 39 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause-126 of the
OERC (Conduct of
Business) Regulations, 1996 (Regulations, 1996, for short) outlining the broad features of
the Distribution & Retail Supply Licensee’s proposed tariff and the rates &
charges in a Schedule appended to the notice and inviting objections from interested
persons. The public notice required the interested persons to file their objections and
documents as they sought to rely upon, supported by an affidavit and also to indicate if
they would like to be heard in person by the Commission. The notice further required the
interested persons to serve a copy of the reply/objection along with the documents relied
upon on the petitioner/applicant and to file proof of such service before the Commission
at the time of filing of the reply/objection.
|
|
2.1.2
|
The above public notice also called upon the interested persons/objectors
to inspect/peruse SOUTHCO’s application and take note thereof during office hours
within 15 days of the publication of the notice. The public notice also informed that the
interested persons could obtain the Salient Features of the Application on payment of
Rs.30/- towards photocopying charges from Managing Director, SOUTHCO, Berhampur and all
Executive Engineers in charge of Distribution Divisions such as Berhampur, Ganjam-North,
Berhampur, Bhanjanagar, Phulbani, Paralakhemundi, Boudh, Jeypore, Rayagada and Nawrangpur.
|
|
2.1.3
|
They could also obtain a full set of the application together with
supporting materials on payment of Rs.100/- towards photocopying charges. The last date of
filing of objection complying with the terms & conditions of the public notice was
fixed to 25.11.2000.
|
|
2.2
|
The Commission received a total of 28 objections from the following
parties: (1) Jeypore Municipality, Jeypore (2) Citizens Committee,
Rayagada (3) Orissa Consumers’ Association, Jeypore Chapter, Jeypore (4) Jeypore
Motor Garage Woner’s Association, Jeypore (5) Koraput District Small Scale Industries
Association, Jeypore (6) M/s Aditya Aluminium, 333, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar (7) Orissa
Grahak Mohasangha, B-4, Palaspalli, Bhubaneswar (8) M/s Utkal Chamber of Commerce &
Industry Ltd., Barabati Stadium, Cuttack (9) M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Sunabeda (10)
M/s Jayshree Chemicals Ltd., P.O. Jayshree, Dist., Ganjam (11) Grahak Panchayat, Friends
Colony, Hospital Road, Paralakhemundi (12) Merchants Association, Rayagada (13) Retired
Government Employees Association, Rayagada (14) Rayagada Municipality, Rayagada (15)
Citizens Committee, Rayagada (16) J.K. Corp, Jay Kay Pur, Rayagada (17) Ganjam District
Electricity Consumers Protection Association, Hinjilikatu, Dist. Ganjam (18) Jaypur
Chambers of Commerce & Industry Ltd., Jeypore (19) Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar (20) M/s Humma & Binchanapalli Salt Production & Sale Co-operative
Society Ltd., Ganjam (21) M/s Bahuda Salt Production & Sale Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Surla, Ganjam (22) Orissa Assembly of Small & Medium Enterprises, Rayagada Chapter,
Rayagada (23) Orissa Small Scales Industries Association, Industrial Estate, Cuttack-10
(24) S.E. Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta. (25) Shri R.P. Mohapatra, 775, Jayadev Bihar,
Bhubaneswar (26) M/s Pentagon Steel Pvt. Ltd., Tulu Road, Konaisi, Dist. Ganjam (27)
Berhampur Municipality, Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam (28) Shri Ali Kishore Pattnaik, Hilpatna,
Berhampur. |
|
2.2.1
|
Commission scrutinized all the objections received. Twenty four objections
were admitted for hearing where as objections of Sl. No. (1) Jeypore Municipality,
Jeypore, Sl. No. (2) Citizens Committee, Rayagada, Sl. No. (9) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Sunabeda and Sl. No. (13) Retired Government Employees Association, Rayagada were not
admitted by the Commission for hearing due to their non-compliance with the terms &
conditions as laid down in the aforesaid public notice. However, the issues raised by them
in their objections have been taken into consideration. All other 24 objections were
admitted for public hearing.
|
|
2.2.2
|
The date of hearing was fixed to 19.12.2000 and Commission issued notices
to the applicant M/s SOUTHCO and the objectors to appear personally or through their
authorised representative or duly constituted attorney for participation in the hearing.
Due to the Postal strike, in the interest of public and as a matter of precaution,
Commission published the notice indicating the date of hearing along with the list of
valid objectors in the largest circulated Oriya daily "The Samaj" on 11.12.2000.
Commission also issued notice to the State Govt. to appear as an interested party.
|
|
2.2.3
|
The applicant was given chance to file rejoinder, if any, to the
objections filed by the objectors and accordingly the applicant filed its rejoinder on
11.12.2000.
|
|
2.2.4
|
The matter was heard on 19.12.2000. Shri N.C. Das, Managing Director,
SOUTHCO made an oral submission in support of the tariff application and prayed for
approval of the tariff proposals. Objectors present were heard in person or through their
authorised representatives. Director (Tariff) of the Commission raised certain queries to
the applicant by way of clarification.
|
|
2.2.5
|
On 23rd December, 2000, the applicant submitted clarification
to the queries raised by Director (Tariff) and reply to the issues raised by the objectors
during the hearing.
|
|
2.3
|
Legal Objections and their validity During hearing, some
preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this tariff proceeding were raised
by some objectors. They are indicated below. |
|
2.3.1
|
Commission has not prescribed any methodology and procedure for
calculating the expected revenue from charges which the petitioner may be permitted to
recover pursuant to the terms of its licence and for determination of the tariff to
collect those revenues.
|
|
2.3.2
|
Tariff once fixed by the Commission cannot be amended within a financial
year.
|
|
2.3.3
|
As per the provisions of Sec.57 & 57(A) read with Sixth Schedule of
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, no application for revision of tariff can be made within 3
years.
|
|
2.3.4
|
The present tariff filing of the applicant violates the provisions of Sec.
29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998.
|
|
2.3.5
|
In the light of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa's stay order dt.01.2.2000
relating to BST Order passed by the Commission on 30.12.99, the present tariff filing of
the licensee is not maintainable.
|
|
2.4
|
Issues at para 2.3.1 to 2.3.4 were raised during tariff proceedings in
case No.22/1999 and had been dealt by the Commission giving clear finding that these
objections were not valid at all. The Commission finds no reason to depart from its
decision and hence these objections have to be overruled.
|
|
2.4.1
|
As regards the objection raised in para 2.3.5 above, it has to be stated
that a stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court on operation of tariff order dated
30.12.1999 in case No.12/1999 which was to be effective from 01.2.2000 has no relevance
for this proceeding which is entirely different and has been initiated with reference to
fresh filings for a subsequent period namely, with reference to revenue requirement for
2000-01.
|
|
2.4.2
|
We have also to note, as we write this order, Hon'ble Orissa High Court
has been pleased to deal with these very preliminary objections and have not found
validity in any of them in their order dated December 22, 2000 passed in M.A. No.51/2000.
We, therefore, note that none of the legal objections by various objectors has any force
and that we have to proceed accordingly to the procedure and principles established by us
in the last three sets of tariff orders namely in March, 1997, November, 1998 and
December, 1999.
|
|
2.5
|
We now proceed to examine the present tariff filing and give our findings
on the same.
|
|