Madras High Court
Jvs Export vs Tamil Nadu Generation & ... on 9 December, 2021
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.4885 to 4887 of 2017
JVS Export
C-12/8, West Ponnagaram 5th Street,
Madurai 625 016.
Represented by its Coordinator (Gen. Admin.)
Mr.Joe Rathinam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO)
rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
5th Floor, NPKKR Maligai
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2.State Load Dispatch Centre
Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
(TANTRANSCO)
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO)
Reprented by the Director (Finance)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
4.Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
(TANTRANSCO)
Represented by its Managing Director
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
5.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
(TNERC)
No 19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
6. Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar.
7. Deputy Financial Controller,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings of the 3rd respondent's impugned circular bearing Lr.No.CFC/
FC/REV/DFC/AAO.HT/AS-3/D.No.166/14 dated 25.11.2014 and the
consequential demand notices bearing
Lr.No.SE/VDR/DFC/AO/Rev./DFC/AAO/HT/AS/F.Solar No.1/D.No.44/16
dated 18.01.2017 and Lr.No.SE/VDR/DFC/AO/Rev./DFC/AAO/HT/AS/F.
Solar No.1/D.No.109/16 dated 08.02.2017 issued by the 6th respondent and
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions the
Comprehensive Tariff Order on Solar Power (Order No.4) dated 12.09.2014
issued by the 5th respondent and the Intra State Open Access Regulations
2005.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
For R1, 3 & 4 : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh
Standing Counsel
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
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
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
“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.
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 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
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.
7. With these observations, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09.12.2021
jd
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO)
rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
5th Floor, NPKKR Maligai
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
2.State Load Dispatch Centre
Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
(TANTRANSCO)
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited
(TANGEDCO)
Reprented by the Director (Finance)
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
4.Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,
(TANTRANSCO)
Represented by its Managing Director
144, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
5.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
(TNERC)
No 19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
6. Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar.
7. Deputy Financial Controller,
Virudhunagar Electricity Distribution Circle,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
jd
W.P.No.4634 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.4885 to 4887 of 2017
09.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
