Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade
Centre, Centre No.1, 13th floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
Case No. 7 of 2000
In the matter of
Dispute between
BSES Ltd. and Tata Electric Group of Companies (now Tata Power Co.) regarding
payment of standby charges to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Shri Jayant Deo, Member
Dr Pramod Deo, Member
INTERIM ORDER
Dated: November 10, 2003
The Commission's Order dated 7.12.2001 was appealed against by
both M/s Tata Power Company Ltd. (TPC) and M/s BSES Ltd. (BSES) in the High
Court. The High Court's common Order
dated 3.6.2003 in these appeals was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with
certain observations, and directed the Commission to decide the dispute
expeditiously, preferably within 3 months.
2. The High Court had,
inter-alia, directed (at para 33 of its Order) as follows:
"So far as the
arrears of standby charges from 1st April, 1999 till 30th June, 2003 are
concerned, 80% of the amount of arrears shall be paid by BSES to TPC and the
TPC shall immediately pay that amount to MSEB.
20% of the amount of arrears shall be paid by TPC to MSEB. In case both the parties namely BSES and TPC
consider that they are entitled to any instalment in payment of arrears they
may make an application before the Commission for grant of instalment after
making payment of at least 50% of the amount payable by them. In case such an application is made, the
Commission shall consider it in accordance with law".
3. BSES have filed an
interim Application dated 28.10.2003 seeking inter-alia-
"that pending the hearing and final disposal of Case No. 7 of
2000 this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to direct as and by way of interim
measure that BSES pay/ deposit subject to final orders of this Hon'ble
Commission, the balance amount of Rs 164.60 crores in four quarterly
instalments, first of such quarterly installments to commence with effect from
1st April, 2004".
BSES have submitted that the prayer is made in pursuance of the
leave granted by the High Court in its Order dated 3.6.2003 cited above. In their interim Application, BSES have
submitted that they are currently facing considerable difficulty in meeting the
outflow as a result of interim ad-hoc payments which are to be made and have
set out the implications.
4. At the time of
hearing in the remitted case by the Commission on 6.11.2003, arguments were
made both in respect of the interim Application as well as partially on the
main matter. In oral submissions,
Counsel for BSES reiterated the contents of the interim Application. He submitted that the arrears as on
30.6.2003 amounted to Rs 411.5 crores.
Taking into account further payments, and the directions regarding such
payments by the High Court, BSES are now required to pay a balance of Rs 164.60
crores, the computation of which is set out in the interim Application. Having paid 50% of the alleged arrears, BSES
are now approaching the Commission for permission to pay the balance of Rs
164.60 crores in 4 equal, quarterly instalments starting from 1.4.2004.
5. Counsel for TPC and
MSEB both questioned BSES contentions regarding the extent of adverse impact of
such payments on the financial position of BSES and its further
implications. Counsel for TPC submitted
that while the High Court had admittedly permitted the parties to approach the
Commission for payment of a part of the amount in instalments under the
stipulated circumstances, this could not be stretched over as long a period
sought by BSES, particularly when the Supreme Court has directed that the main
matter be disposed of by the Commission as far as possible within a period of 3
months, Counsel for MSEB submitted that, while they had no objection in principle
to payment of the balance amount in instalments, the difficult cash flow
position of MSEB needs to be taken into account also. The dispensation sought by BSES was unreasonable insofar as the
instalments would only start at the beginning of the next financial year and
would stretch over that year. Instead,
he urged that, if instalments are allowed, they should be on an equated monthly
basis, and be completed by the end of the current financial year itself.
5. Taking into
consideration the mandate given by the High Court and the submissions made by
BSES in their interim Application as well as oral submissions of Counsel for
BSES, TPC and MSEB, the Commission considers it fair and equitable to permit
BSES to pay the balance amount in four bi-monthly instalments starting from 1st
January, 2004, subject and without prejudice to the final decision of the
Commission in the main matter remitted to it.
| Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | |
| (Jayant Deo) | (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
|
| Member | Member | Chairman, MERC |
|
Sd/- |
|||
| (A.M. Khan) | |||
| Secretary, MERC | |||
|
|||