|
2.0
|
Procedural History On examination of both the
applications of GRIDCO, it was noticed that information and analysis with regard to a
number of items which are extremely relevant for the Determination of Transmission &
Bulk Supply Tariff and Revenue Requirement had not been furnished. The Commission
forwarded its comments/queries to GRIDCO calling for clarifications as well as additional
information. |
|
2.1
|
Subsequently, the licensee
furnished the same and thereafter, filing of both the applications was treated as complete
and both the applications were admitted for hearing. Ever since its inception, Commission
has essayed to render transparent, participatory and consultative approach to the entire
process of Utility's Revenue Requirement and Tariff setting. In order to invite objections
from the public, the licensee was directed to publish public notices on the proposed
Transmission & Bulk Supply Tariff as well as on the proposed Revenue Requirement in
the format approved by the Commission.
|
|
2.1.1
|
Notices were published in different
leading English and Oriya daily newspapers having wide circulation in the licensee's area
of supply on two consecutive days and also in the Commissions' website : www.orierc.org
indicating the broad features of licensee's proposed Tariff & Revenue Requirement and
also the procedure for filing of objections.
|
|
2.1.2
|
The intending objectors had right to
inspect/peruse licensee's applications and to obtain the salient feature of the
applications/full set of applications on payment of prescribed fees from the specified
offices of the licensee.
|
|
2.1.3
|
In response to the above notices,
objections were received from different quarters. In respect of the Tariff Application for
2001-2002, the Commission received as many as 22 objections from the following objectors
:- (1) M/s National Aluminium Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar, (2) R.P. Mohapatra, Jaydev
Vihar, Bhubaneswar, (3) Orissa Consumers' Association, Cuttack, (4) M/s Indian Charge
Chrome Ltd., Bhubaneswar, (5) Confederation of Indian Industries, Bhubaneswar, (6) Orissa
Grahak Mahasangha, Bhubaneswar, (7) M/s Aditya Aluminium, Bhubaneswar, (8) Orissa
Electrical Contractor's Association, Cuttack, (9) R.C. Padhi, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, (10)
Indian Ferro Alloy Producers' Association, Mumbai, (11) M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company
Ltd., Bhubaneswar, (12) Orissa Industries Association, Berhampur, (13) M/s WESCO, At/P.O.
Burla, Sambalpur, (14) M/s Jayshree Chemicals Ltd., Ganjam, (15) M/s Utkal Chambers of
Commerce & Industry Ltd., Cuttack, (16) Orissa Small Scale Industries Association,
Cuttack, (17) Shri Jaydev Misra, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, (18) M/s Indian Aluminium
Company, Hirakud, Sambalpur, (19) Shri R.C. Mohapatra, Mohanadi Bihar, Cuttack, (20) Ferro
Alloys Corporation Ltd., Bhadrak, (21) M/s SOUTHCO, Berhampur, (22) M/s NESCO, Balasore.
All the above mentioned objections were scrutinised, found valid and admitted for hearing. |
|
2.1.4
|
In respect of licensee's
application for Revenue Requirement for 2002-2003, the Commission received eight
objections from the following objectors :- (1) Shri R.C. Padhi, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar,
(2) M/s NESCO, Balasore, (3) M/s INDAL, Sambalpur, (4) M/s WESCO, Sambalpur, (5) Utkal
Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Barabati Stadium, Cuttack, (6) Shri R.P. Mohapatra,
Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar and (7) Confederation of Indian Industries, Bhubaneswar, (8)
M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar. All the eight objections were
scrutinised and admitted for hearing. |
|
2.1.5
|
The licensee was given chance to
file rejoinder, if any, to the objections filed by the objectors and accordingly, the
licensee filed its rejoinder serving copy to the objectors in both the cases.
|
|
2.1.6
|
The date of hearing in both the
cases was fixed on 18.3.2002. Notices were published in leading English and Oriya daily
newspapers requiring the licensee and the objectors to appear personally or through their
authorised representatives or duly constituted attorney to take part in the hearing. The
Commission also issued notice to the State Government to appear as an interested party.
The Commission has received no response from the Government nor any representative on
behalf of the State Government was present during the hearing.
|
|
2.1.7
|
Both the cases were heard
analogously on 18.3.2002. The Director (Commercial), GRIDCO supported both the
applications and prayed for approval of the Tariff proposal as well as Revenue
Requirement. Objectors present were heard in person or through their authorised
representatives or duly constituted attorneys. The Director (Tariff) of the Commission
raised certain queries to the licensee by way of clarification. Subsequently, the licensee
submitted required clarifications to the queries of the Director (Tariff).
|
|
2.1.8
|
In its consultative process,
Commission convened Commission Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on 30.3.2002 and consulted
with its constituent members about the proposed tariff and revenue requirement of the
licensee. The Government representative did not participate in the said meeting.
|
|
2.2
|
Legal Objections as to the
maintainability of the Cases. During hearing, the following objections
were raised regarding the maintainability of the cases by some objectors. |
|
2.2.1
|
The Commission has not prescribed
any methodology and procedure for calculating the expected revenue from charges which the
licensee may be permitted to recover pursuant to the terms of its licence and for
determination of tariff to collect those revenues.
|
|
2.2.2
|
As per the provisions of Sec.57 and
57 A read with sixth Schedule of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, no application of
revision of tariff can be made within three years.
|
|
2.2.3
|
As the Commission is going to pass
final orders in both the cases without following the procedures laid down in Sec.29 of the
Reform Act, 1995, the proceedings are vitiated.
|
|
2.2.4
|
The licensee has filed its tariff
application for the financial year 2001-2002. Since the said financial year is going to be
over after a few days and before passing of the tariff order, the application has become
infructuous.
|
|
2.2.5
|
Issues at paras 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
were raised during the tariff proceedings in Case No.12/1999 and had been dealt with by
the Commission giving clear findings that such objections were not at all valid. The
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa were pleased to deal with these objections and did not find
validity in any of them as per their order dtd. 22.12.2000 passed in M.A. No.51/2000. The
Commission finds no reason to depart from its earlier findings and hence, such objections
are to be over-ruled.
|
|
2.2.6
|
Now, we propose to deal with the
objection raised in para 2.2.3 above. Sub-Section (1) of Section 28 of Reform Act, 1995
contemplates that where the Commission is satisfied that a licensee is contravening, or is
likely to contravene any relevant conditions or requirement of its licence, it shall by
final order under Section 29 and, if it thinks it appropriate in accordance with
Sub-Section (2) by interim order under this Section, issue such directions as it deems
proper for securing compliance. Final order as envisaged u/s 29 of Reform Act, 1995 must
relate to the contravention of a condition of licence by the licensee. But the present
proceedings relate to the determination of tariff and revenue requirement and do not
contravene any condition of licence by the licensee. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that Section 29 of Reform Act, 1995 has no relevance to the present proceedings
and the contention raised on this score is not tenable in the eyes of law.
|
|
2.2.7
|
As regards the objection raised in
para 2.2.4 above, it has to be stated that the licensee has submitted at the time of
hearing that tariff may be enhanced from the date of the order or from a future date to be
fixed by the Commission in its order and its application should not be rejected merely
because the financial year 2001-2002 is going to be over after a few days. It is a
well-established convention that a tariff order can be made effective prospectively. As
such, the tariff application filed by the licensee can not be said to be infructuous.
|
|
2.2.8
|
We, therefore, note that none of the
legal objections raised by various objectors has any force in the eye of law and that we
have to proceed according to the procedure and principles established by us in the last
four sets of tariff orders namely in March, 1997, November, 1998, December, 1999 and
January, 2001.
|
|
2.2.9
|
We now proceed to examine the
present tariff filing and record our findings on the same.
|
|