Madras High Court
The South Indian Sugar Mills ... vs Tamil Nadu Generation & ... on 1 December, 2021
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.925 to 928, 931, 16770, 6541, 2020, 6636,
7956, 10374 of 2015 and 28331 of 2016
and
M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2015 (4 M.Ps), 4 and 5 of 2015,
2 and 3 of 2015, 3 and 4 of 2015, 4 and 5 of 2015,
4 and 5 of 2015, 1 of 2015, 2 and 3 of 2015 and
W.M.P.Nos.24444 to 24446 of 2016
W.P.No.925 of 2015:
The South Indian Sugar Mills Association, Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary
“Karumuthu Centre”
2nd Floor, 634, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 035 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
5th Floor, NPKKR Maligai
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
2.State Load Dispatch Centre
TANTRANSCO
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
3.Director (Finance)
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
4.Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
5.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
No 19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent
herein in Lr.No.CFC/ FC/ REV/DFC/AAO. HT/AS-3/D.NO.166/14 dated
25.11.2014 and consequential demands for payment of Scheduling and
System Operation charges and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and
without authority of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.Rahul Balaji
(in all W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
Standing Counsel
[For TNEB/TANGEDCO]
(in all W.Ps)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
COMMON ORDER
The issue relates to the Scheduling and System Operation charges to
be collected from the generators who are in 'Sale to Board' categories.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this
Court that for Bagasse based co-generation plants, the Hon'ble Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity [APTEL] in its order RP.No.13 of 2013 dated
30.06.2014 in Appeal No.199 of 2012 & batch, held that the Scheduling and
System operation charges are not applicable to sugar mills selling their entire
powers to the distribution license.
3. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the APTEL and the relevant paragraphs are
extracted:
“77. There are two types of Wind energy
Generators. The first type of wind energy generators are
those who supply their entire energy to the distribution
licensees. The second type of wind energy generators are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
those who supply their energy mainly for captive use or to
third parties by availing open access and also bank their
energy with distribution licensee for reuse during the
specified banking period. However, the payment for
unutilized wind energy at the end of the specified banking
period is made by the distribution licensee at the rates
determined by the State Commission. For the first type of
wind energy generators, the wheeling charges, line losses,
banking charges, applicable demand charges and energy
charges for captive use etc., are not relevant as these
wind energy generators supply their entire energy at the
delivery point directly to the distribution licensees. The
charges as indicated in Regulation 8 are relevant to the
second category of wind energy generators.
78. The reading of both the Regulations and the
provisions of the wheeling agreement would make it
evident that the tariff of the wind energy generators who
have signed PPA for supply of their energy output to the
distribution licensee would not be re-opened with
subsequent revision of wind energy tariff. However,
wheeling charges, line losses, transmission charges etc.,
for wind energy generators who supply their energy
mainly for their captive consumption or for third party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
sale through open access has to be decided by the State
Commission from time to time. The Wheeling charges,
transmission losses, transmission charges, banking
charges etc., are decided in the tariff order for the control
period and during that control period the same charges
would prevail. With subsequent revision in the open
access charges by tariff order, new charges would
become applicable to such wind energy generators who
are supplying power through open access.”
4. In yet another order and judgment of the Hon'ble APTEL in the
South Indian Sugar Mills Association and others Vs. TNERC and others
in RP No.13 of 2013 in Appeal Nos.199 of 2012 & batch dated 30.06.2014,
the APTEL held as follows:
“32. As pointed out by the Review Petitioners in
respect of the Appellants sugar mills selling their energy
to the distribution licensee in the impugned tariff order
in respect of matters enumerated in para 8.2 would not
be applicable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
33. In view of the above, it would be
appropriate to hold that the provisions of the impugned
tariff order enumerated in para 8.2 being matters
enumerated in the Regulation 8 should not be made
applicable to the sugar mills who sell their energy to the
distribution licensee. Thus, the finding given in respect of
this issue is modified to the said effect. Accordingly
ordered.”
5. However, it is informed that the said judgments are taken by way
of an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the
respondent/Electricity Board and there is no interim order in force.
6. Admittedly, the Appeals are pending. This being the factum the
order passed by the APTEL dated 24.05.2013 in Appeal No.197 of 2012 &
batch and order and judgment of APTEL dated 30.06.2014 in RP No.13 of
2013 in Appeal Nos.199 of 2012 & batch stands extended in favour of the
petitioner, however, subject to the final orders to be passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the pending Appeals already filed by the
respondent Electricity Board.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
7. With these observations, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
01.12.2021
Jeni/Cse
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited,
5th Floor, NPKKR Maligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The State Load Dispatch Centre,
TANTRANSCO,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Director (Finance),
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
4.The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
5.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
No 19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Cse
W.P.Nos.925 of 2015 & etc.,
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
