Telangana High Court
Mahalakshmi Profiles P Ltd vs The Transmission Corporation Of ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 13917 OF 2023
ORDER:
Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to
respondents to allow additional open access power of 15 MW.
2. Petitioner is H.T. category consumer of the 2nd
respondent DISCOM. During 2017, it is stated, when they
applied for availing open access power of 6.5 M.W. (6500 KVA),
the 2nd respondent refused permission on the ground of non-
availability of distribution network corridor. Petitioner
therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 25144 of 2017 which was
allowed by order dated 28.09.2018 directing respondents
therein to allow open access on the ground that reasons stated
for refusal are dubious. Respondents thereafter, preferred Writ
Appeal No. 80 of 2019 and the same was dismissed.
Consequently, petitioner was allowed to avail open access power
of 6.5 MW.
Thereafter, CMD of petitioner was enhanced to 16.5
MW by 01.04.2022. Petitioner therefore, by letters dated
18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 requested respondents to permit
open access of 16.5 M.W. Thereupon, the Chief Engineer, Rural
Zone, by letter dated 10.08.2022 directed petitioner to deposit
Rs.2,18,30,000/- for development of 132 KV independent line
from Manoharabad Sub-station to petitioner's factory and they
complied with the said direction even and the Superintendent
Engineer submitted report on 21.03.2023. In the meanwhile,
petitioner CMD was enhanced to 21.5 MW. and applied to
Respondents for issuance of no objection for availing additional
15 MW., making a total of 21.5 M.W., however respondents have
not issued no objection.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Erigi Ganesh
submits that respondents cannot deny open access and it is the
statutory right of petitioner under Sections 42 and 43 of the
Electricity Act (for short, 'the Act'). To support his contention, he
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking
v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) 1.
4. The case of TSSPDCL, as stated by the Chief
General Manager (IPC), is that petitioner enhanced its CMD
from 6.5 to 21.5 MW in 2022 and upgraded its voltage level from
33 KV to 132 KV. It is stated, respondents have been issuing
(2015) 2 SCC 438
NOC to petitioner for OA capacity of 6.5 MW amid saturated grid
constrains as per direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.
25144 of 2017. They chose to avail open access power for
higher OA capacity and if permitted, it will cause huge impact
on the schedules of the respondent company and affect the grid
stability. The argument of learned Standing counsel for
TSSPDCL Sri R. Vinod Reddy is that respondent company is
also to generate funds to subsidize economically-weaker
sections of society, farmers, etcetera. In the present case, the
entire grid capacity was allotted to various consumers and there
is no corridor available to accept the request of petitioner for
additional open access over and above 6.5 MW. According to
learned Standing Counsel, availing of supply through open
access with short intervals and higher OA capacity throughout a
day would further load the network resulting in congestion of
the existing network, in view of the same, petitioner was
informed vide letter dated 02.09.2022 that enhancement of OA
capacity cannot be considered. It is also submitted that this
respondent company with an intention to provide 24 hours
supply to all its consumers, has been purchasing power from
Power Exchanges in which rate is very uncertain and depends
upon the external factors such as availability of power and
demand across the nation and they are under obligation to
supply uninterrupted power to all consumers and utilise the
grid judiciously to accommodate them.
5. Having gone through the provisions of the
Electricity Act, particularly a conjoint reading of Sections 42
and 43 of the Act along with the objectives and purposes for
which it was enacted, it becomes clear that when an Application
is made by a consumer to a distribution licensee for supply of
electricity, such a distribution licensee can request other
distribution licensee in the area to provide its network to make
available for wheeling electricity to such consumers and this
open access is to be given as per the provisions of Section 42(3).
However, TSSPDCL vide letter dated 02.09.2022 informed that
enhancement of OA capacity could not be considered as availing
of supply through open access with short intervals and higher
OA capacity throughout a day would further load the network
resulting in congestion of existing network.
6. Admittedly, petitioner was allowed OA capacity of
6.5 MW in 2017 and thereafter it was enhanced to 16.5 MW in
2022 and 21.5 MW. Though, as contended by the learned
counsel, it shall be the duty of distribution licensee to develop
and maintain an efficient distribution system and further
Section 42 (3) of the Electricity Act casts a duty upon the
distribution licensee to provide Open Access to the consumers,
in this regard, the case of TSSPDCL is that distribution corridor
is getting overloaded due to various schemes of Government of
Telangana to provide 24 hours power supply to all the services
including agricultural services from January 2018 onwards and
to abide by the policy of the State Government, TSDISCOMS
have to make necessary arrangements for adequate power
procurement from various sources for which rate is very
uncertain and depends upon the external factors such as
availability and demand. Apart from that, petitioner has been
availing supply from respondent when power prices at exchange
are at higher rate than the distribution companies' tariffs.
7. In view of the specific contentions of learned
Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that if petitioner is
permitted to upgrade the OA capacity, it will further burden the
network resulting in congestion of the existing network. The
Writ Petition does not merit consideration and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
9. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
08th January 2025
ksld
