|
2.0
|
Procedural History On examination
of both the applications of SOUTHCO, it was noticed that information and analysis with
regard to a number of items which are extremely relevant for the Determination of Tariff
& Revenue Requirement had not been furnished. The Commission forwarded its
comments/queries to SOUTHCO calling for clarifications as well as additional information. |
|
2.1
|
Subsequently, the licensee furnished the same and thereafter
the 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 Retail 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 19 objections from the following objectors :-
(1) Orissa Consumers' Association, Cuttack, (2) J.K.Papers Ltd., Jaykaypur Raygada, (3)
Humma and Binchanapalli, Salt Production & Sale Co-operation Society Ltd., Ganjam, (4)
Ganjam District Electricity Consumers Protection Association, Hinjilicut, (5) Grahak
Panchayat, Paralakhemundi, (6) Orissa Grahak Mahasangha, Bhubaneswar, (7) Akhil Bharatiya
Grahak Panchayat, Chakeisihani, Bhubaneswar, (8) Aditya Aluminium (HINDALCO), Bhubaneswar,
(9) R.C. Padhi, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, (10) Orissa Assembly of Small & Medium
Enterprises, Rayagada, (11) Orissa Industries Association, Berhampur, (12) R.P. Mohapatra,
Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, (13) Utkal Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Barabati
Stadium, Cuttack, (14) Orissa Small Scale Industries Association, Cuttack, (15) Gajapati
District Consumer Association, Parakhemundi, (16) Merchant Association, Rayagada, (17)
Rayagada Municipality, Rayagada, (18) Citizen Committee, Rayagada, (19) Jayshree Chemicals
Ltd., Ganjam.
|
|
2.1.4
|
All the above objections were scrutinised. Eighteen objections
were admitted for hearing whereas objections at Sl. No.15 of Gajapati District Consumer
Association was not admitted for hearing due to its non-compliance with the terms and
conditions as laid down in the aforesaid public notice. However, the relevant issues
raised by him in his objection has been taken into consideration.
|
|
2.1.5
|
In respect of licensee's application for Revenue Requirement
for 2002-2003, the Commission received three objections from the following objectors :-
(1) M/s Utkal Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Cuttack, (2) Shri R.P. Mohapatra,
Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, (3) M/s Jayshree Chemicals Ltd., Ganjam. All the three
objections were admitted for hearing.
|
|
2.1.6
|
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.
|
|
2.1.7
|
The date of hearing in both the cases was fixed on 22.3.2002.
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.
|
|
2.1.8
|
Both the cases were heard analogously on 22.3.2002. The
Managing Director, SOUTHCO 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).
|
|
2.1.9
|
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.
|
|
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 for 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 expire 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 No22./ 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 in 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. This is not in contravention of 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 eye 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 expire 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 give
our findings on the same.
|
|