Brief Facts of the Case
An appeal was filed by Jindal Steel & Power Ltd, a Naveen Jindal group company, challenging the cancellation of Jindal’s distribution license for supply and distribution of power in the OP Jindal Park, spanning two villages in the State of Chhattisgarh. Jindal was supplying power to 43 power-intensive industries. Jindal was supplying power in terms of a Government MoUs and the license granted by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CSERC). However, the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the distribution license as allegedly Jindal did not fulfil the ‘minimum area’ requirement under the Electricity Rules, 2005 for grant of license. Jindal moved the Supreme Court challenging the Appellate Tribunal’s decision challenging its’ distribution rights.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong to hold that the minimum area for grant of license under the Electricity Rules, 2005 has to necessarily be the entire Municipal area/Municipal Corporation or Revenue District. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the required area for grant of distribution license can be a smaller area within a Municipal area/Municipal Corporation or Revenue District.
In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a distribution license can be granted for an area falling within a Municipal area/Municipal Corporation or Revenue District. The parallel licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 now has the ability to apply for a smaller area than the entirety of a Municipal area/Municipal Corporation or Revenue District, which was the view earlier by the Appellate Tribunal.
About Team:
Jindal was led by Senior Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Sen who gave the historical perspective under which the license was granted. He pointed out that Jindal was given the necessary permissions by the State under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that Jindal had to step up and supply to the State-based industries as the CSPDCL did not have the power or infrastructure to supply to the industries. This assisted the court to come to a view that the Appellate Tribunal had erred by cancelling Jindal’s distribution license and the CSERC was right in granting of license. Mr. Sen was assisted by Ms. Mandakini Ghosh, Adv. The Advocate on Record was Khaitan & Co.
CASE TITLE: M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited ... APPELLANT(S) Vs. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
CASE DETAILS: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.36073610 OF 2008
CORAM: Justice Ajay Rastogi an Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
