Appellate Tribunal Decision Summary: Appeal Nos. 69, 70, 72, and 73 of 2020

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appeals

Appeal Information

• Appeals Addressed: Appeal Nos. 69, 70, 72, and 73 of 2020.

• Date of Order: 5th May, 2025.

• Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma (Technical Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat (Judicial Member).

Parties Involved

Appellant

• Name: Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Lanco Budhil Hydro Power Private Limited).

• Address: P.No. 1367, Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033.

• Representative: Manager (Email: manojkumar.t@greenkogroup.com).

Respondents

1. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)

   • Through its Secretary, New Delhi (Email: secy@cercind.gov.in).

2. Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL)

   • Formerly Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL).

   • Through its Chief General Manager, Gurgaon (Email: powergrid.pr@powergrid.in, swapnilverma@powergridindia.com).

3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

   • Through its Nodal Officer, Jaipur (Email: ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in).

4. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

   • Through its Managing Director, Ajmer (Email: avvnl0145@yahoo.com, ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in).

5. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

   • Through its Managing Director, Jaipur (Email: companysecy@jvvnl.org, Ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in).

6. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

   • Through its Managing Director, Jodhpur (Email: md.jdvvnl@rajasthan.gov.in, ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in).

7. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

   • Through Chairman, Shimla (Email: cecomm@hpseb.in).

8. Punjab State Electricity Board

   • Through its Managing Director, Patiala (Email: cmd-pspcl@pspcl.in).

9. Haryana Power Purchase Centre

   • Through its Chairman, Panchkula (Email: cehppc@uhbvn.org.in).

10. Power Development Department

    • Through its Chairman, Srinagar (Email: md@jkspdcl.com, edelectricalpdc@gmail.com).

11. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.

    • Through its Chairman, Lucknow (Email: spatcircle2010@gmail.com).

12. Delhi Transco Limited

    • Through its Manager, New Delhi (Email: gm.comm@dtl.gov.in).

13. BSES Yamuna Power Limited, New Delhi

    • Through Chairman (Email: sameer.singh@relianceada.com).

14. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited

    • Through Chairman, New Delhi (Email: megha.bajpeyi@gmail.com).

15. North Delhi Power Limited

    • Through its Managing Director, New Delhi (Email: md.office@tatapower.ddl.com, anurag.bansal@tatapower.ddl.com).

16. Chandigarh Administration

    • Through the Administrator Union Territory, Chandigarh (Email: apc.chandigarh@gmail.com).

17. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

    • Through the Chairperson, Dehradun (Email: cgmupcl@yahoo.com).

18. North Central Railway

    • Through the General Manager, Allahabad (Email: nrtrdhq@gmail.com).

19. New Delhi Municipal Council

    • Through the Chairman, New Delhi (Email: chairperson@ndmc.gov.in, Director.commercial@ndmc.gov.in).

20. PTC India Limited

    • Through the Chairman, New Delhi (Email: harishsaran@ptcindia.com).

Legal Representation

• Appellant's Counsel: Sanjay Sen, Hemant Singh, Nishant Kumar, Ambuj Dixit, Tushar Srivastava, Shariq Ahmed, Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal, Soumya Singh, Karan Govel.

• Respondents' Counsel: Suparna Srivastava (for Res. 2), Ravi Kishore, Niraj Singh, Prerna Singh, Keshav Singh (for Res. 20).

Background of the Appeals

• The appeals challenge a common order dated 10th May, 2019, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in Review Petitions Nos. 65/RP/2016, 66/RP/2016, 18/RP/2017, and 19/RP/2017.

• The appellant, Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., owns and operates a 70 MW Hydro Power Plant located at Budhil Village, Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh (Budhil HEP).

• PTC India Limited had obtained long-term open access (LTOA) for power evacuation and sale from the Budhil Hydro Electric Project.

• A tripartite Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (BPTA) was executed between the Appellant, PTC, and PGCIL on 18th October, 2007.

• The appellant was required to construct a dedicated transmission line from Budhil HEP to PGCIL's pooling station, while PGCIL was to construct a 400/220 KV pooling station near Chamera-II HEP of NHPC.

• The appellant requested PGCIL to pre-pone the commercial operation date of the 400/220 KV pooling station.

Petitions Filed by PGCIL

1. Petition No. 92/TT/2011: Filed for approval of transmission charges for:

   • 400 kV D/C transmission line from GIS Pooling Station Chamba-Jalandhar.

   • 220 kV D/C transmission line from GIS Pooling Station Chamba-Chamera HEP.

   • Jalandhar Sub-station Extension under Transmission System associated with Chamera-III HEP for 2009-14 period.

   • The Commission approved the tariff, stating that transmission charges would be shared by PTC/LANCO until the assets became part of the regional system.

   “59. The transmission charges for the transmission assets covered under this petition shall be shared by the PTC/LANCO in line with the
   BPTA dated 18.10.2007 signed between PTC/LANCO and the petitioner, till these assets become part of the regional system, i.e. till the
   commissioning of Chamera-III HEP. After the asset becomes part of regional system, all the constituents of the Northern Region shall share
   the tariff in accordance with the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of inter-state transmission charges and losses)
   Regulations, 2010.”

2. Petition No. 94/TT/2011: Filed seeking transmission charges for:

   • 400 kV S/C Chamera-II Pooling Station transmission line.

   • 400/220 kV 315 MVA ICT-I & ICT-II.

   • 80 MVAR Bus Reactor at pooling point under establishment of 400/220 kV GIS Pooling Station near Chamera-II HEP for the 2009-14 period.

   • The transmission charges were allowed, and the Commission held that these charges would be shared by PTC/LANCO as per the BPTA until they became part of the regional system.

   “50. In the light of the submissions of the petitioner, we direct that the
   transmission charges for the transmission assets covered under Part-I
   shall be shared by the PTC/ LANCO in line with the BPTA dated
   18.10.2007 signed between PTC/LANCO and the petitioner, till these
   assets becomes part of the regional system i.e. till the commissioning of
   Chamera–III HEP. After the asset becomes part of regional system, all
   the constituents of the Northern Region shall share the tariff in
   accordance with Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (sharing of
   inter-state transmission charges and losses) Regulations, 2010.”

Subsequent Events

• PGCIL raised invoices on 2nd July, 2014, for Rs. 404.01 lakhs and Rs. 2511.59 lakhs to the Appellant towards transmission charges for the period between November 2011 and June 2012.

  • Rs. 404.01
    ewline lakhs

  • Rs. 2511.59
    ewline lakhs

• PGCIL filed Petition No. 528/TT/2014 and Petition No. 18/TT/2015 for truing up the tariff allowed in Petition No. 94/TT/2011 and Petition No. 92/TT/2011, respectively.

Appellant's Grievances and Review Petitions

• The Appellant filed Interlocutory Applications seeking recall of the orders and quashing of PGCIL's invoices, which were converted into Review Petitions Nos. 65/RP/2016, 66/RP/2016, 18/RP/2017, 19/RP/2017.

• The Commission disposed of these petitions via a common order dated 10th May, 2019.

Commission's Reasoning in the Impugned Order

• The transmission system was to be built by PGCIL for evacuating power from Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP.

• LGPPL was to bear the transmission charges until Chamera-III HEP was commissioned.

• The evacuation system arrangements were finalized in the 23rd Meeting of the Standing Committee.

• LGPPL agreed to bear the transmission charges from the commissioning of Budhil HEP to the anticipated date of commissioning of Chamera-III HEP, provided PGCIL's transmission system was ready.

• The Commission noted an Indemnification Agreement between PGCIL and NHPC, stating that the defaulting party would compensate the other in case of delays.

  “2. INDEMNIFICATOIN”
  a) In the event of delay in commissioning of generating units vis a vis
  ATS the defaulting party shall pay the Interest During Construction
  (IDC) including Foreign Exchange Rate Variation (FERV) and Govt.
  Guarantee fee, if any, for generating units and ATS calculated as
  lower of the two, up to a period of six months from the zero date.
  However, the defaulting party shall pay the indemnification claim
  only in case of revenue loss or part thereof suffered by the other
  party due to delay in commissioning by the defaulting party.”

• The Commission directed PGCIL to file a fresh petition impleading GBHPPL and NHPC to determine the sharing of transmission charges.

Issues Raised by the Appellant

• The Commission's order contradicted the original orders by implying the transmission charges should be shared by the Appellant and NHPC.

• The Appellant argued that the Commission did not consider the terms of the BPTA, which placed the liability on PTC.

PGCIL's Submissions

• The transmission system was planned considering the Appellant’s Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP of NHPC.

• The Appellant agreed to bear transmission charges for the associated transmission system until it became part of the regional system.

• The Appellant confirmed via letter dated 29th August, 2007, that it would pay the transmission charges of the line from Chamera-III to Chamba Pooling Station until the system became part of the regional grid.

PTC's Submissions

• PTC referred to letters where the Appellant agreed to bear the transmission charges.

• PTC argued that the defaulting party (the Appellant) should pay transmission charges due to the delay in commissioning its hydro power project.

Tribunal's Analysis

• The Tribunal noted the delays in commissioning both Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP, while PGCIL’s transmission system was commissioned on 1st November, 2011.

• The Commission was found to have misread the BPTA in holding the Appellant liable with NHPC, as NHPC was not a party to the BPTA.

• The BPTA stipulated the sharing of transmission charges, with PTC also bearing a portion.

• Clause 1.0(a) of the BPTA provided that the long-term transmission customer (PTC) should share and pay transmission charges.

• The Tribunal stated that prior representations by the Appellant were superseded by the execution of the BPTA dated 18th October, 2007.

• The indemnification agreement between PGCIL and NHPC did not alter the provisions of the BPTA.

Tribunal's Decision

• The Commission's order dated 10th May, 2019, and the orders dated 16th November, 2012, and 2nd January, 2013, were set aside.

• The appeals were allowed, and Review Petitions filed by the Appellant before the Commission were also allowed.

• The invoices dated 2nd July, 2014, issued by PGCIL in the name of the Appellant were quashed.

• PGCIL (now CTUIL) was directed to issue fresh invoices in accordance with the provisions of the BPTA.

Final Order

• The appeals were allowed on 5th May, 2025.

Appeal Information

• Appeals Addressed: Appeal Nos. 69, 70, 72, and 73 of 2020, indicating a consolidated judgment across multiple related appeals.

• Date of Order: 5th May, 2025, marking the final decision date by the Appellate Tribunal.

• Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma (Technical Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat (Judicial Member), specifying the presiding officials and their expertise.

Parties Involved

Appellant

• Name: Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Lanco Budhil Hydro Power Private Limited), detailing the evolution of the company's name.

• Address: P.No. 1367, Road No. 45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033, providing full contact information.

• Representative: Manager (Email: manojkumar.t@greenkogroup.com), offering a direct contact for inquiries.

Respondents

1. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)- Through its Secretary, New Delhi (Email: secy@cercind.gov.in), the primary regulatory body.

2. Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL)- Formerly Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL).

   • Through its Chief General Manager, Gurgaon (Email: powergrid.pr@powergrid.in, swapnilverma@powergridindia.com), the entity responsible for power transmission infrastructure.

3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited- Through its Nodal Officer, Jaipur (Email: ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in), representing the state transmission utility for Rajasthan.

4. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited- Through its Managing Director, Ajmer (Email: avvnl0145@yahoo.com, ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in), one of the distribution companies in Rajasthan.

5. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited- Through its Managing Director, Jaipur (Email: companysecy@jvvnl.org, Ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in), another distribution company in Rajasthan.

6. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited- Through its Managing Director, Jodhpur (Email: md.jdvvnl@rajasthan.gov.in, ce.nppr@rvpn.co.in), a distribution company serving the Jodhpur region.

7. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board- Through Chairman, Shimla (Email: cecomm@hpseb.in), the state electricity board of Himachal Pradesh.

8. Punjab State Electricity Board- Through its Managing Director, Patiala (Email: cmd-pspcl@pspcl.in), the electricity board for Punjab.

9. Haryana Power Purchase Centre- Through its Chairman, Panchkula (Email: cehppc@uhbvn.org.in), the power procurement agency for Haryana.

10. Power Development Department- Through its Chairman, Srinagar (Email: md@jkspdcl.com, edelectricalpdc@gmail.com), responsible for power development in Jammu and Kashmir.

11. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.- Through its Chairman, Lucknow (Email: spatcircle2010@gmail.com), the power corporation of Uttar Pradesh.

12. Delhi Transco Limited- Through its Manager, New Delhi (Email: gm.comm@dtl.gov.in), the transmission utility for Delhi.

13. BSES Yamuna Power Limited, New Delhi- Through Chairman (Email: sameer.singh@relianceada.com), a private distribution company in Delhi.

14. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited- Through Chairman, New Delhi (Email: megha.bajpeyi@gmail.com), another private distribution company in Delhi.

15. North Delhi Power Limited- Through its Managing Director, New Delhi (Email: md.office@tatapower.ddl.com, anurag.bansal@tatapower.ddl.com), also known as Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL).

16. Chandigarh Administration- Through the Administrator Union Territory, Chandigarh (Email: apc.chandigarh@gmail.com), representing the administration of Chandigarh.

17. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.- Through the Chairperson, Dehradun (Email: cgmupcl@yahoo.com), the state power utility of Uttarakhand.

18. North Central Railway- Through the General Manager, Allahabad (Email: nrtrdhq@gmail.com), indicating railway's involvement as a power consumer.

19. New Delhi Municipal Council- Through the Chairman, New Delhi (Email: chairperson@ndmc.gov.in, Director.commercial@ndmc.gov.in), representing the civic body of New Delhi.

20. PTC India Limited- Through the Chairman, New Delhi (Email: harishsaran@ptcindia.com), a power trading company involved in the agreements.

Legal Representation

• Appellant's Counsel: Sanjay Sen, Hemant Singh, Nishant Kumar, Ambuj Dixit, Tushar Srivastava, Shariq Ahmed, Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal, Soumya Singh, Karan Govel, listing the legal team representing Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd.

• Respondents' Counsel: Suparna Srivastava (for Res. 2), Ravi Kishore, Niraj Singh, Prerna Singh, Keshav Singh (for Res. 20), identifying the legal representatives for CTUIL and PTC India Limited.

Background of the Appeals

• The appeals challenge a common order dated 10th May, 2019, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in Review Petitions Nos. 65/RP/2016, 66/RP/2016, 18/RP/2017, and 19/RP/2017, indicating the legal contention origins.

• The appellant, Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., owns and operates a 70 MW Hydro Power Plant located at Budhil Village, Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh (Budhil HEP), detailing the project scale and location.

• PTC India Limited had obtained long-term open access (LTOA) for power evacuation and sale from the Budhil Hydro Electric Project, specifying PTC's role in power distribution.

• A tripartite Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (BPTA) was executed between the Appellant, PTC, and PGCIL on 18th October, 2007, establishing contractual obligations.

• The appellant was required to construct a dedicated transmission line from Budhil HEP to PGCIL's pooling station, while PGCIL was to construct a 400/220 KV pooling station near Chamera-II HEP of NHPC, outlining infrastructure responsibilities.

• The appellant requested PGCIL to pre-pone the commercial operation date of the 400/220 KV pooling station, indicating concerns about project timelines.

Petitions Filed by PGCIL

1. Petition No. 92/TT/2011: Filed for approval of transmission charges for:

   • 400 kV D/C transmission line from GIS Pooling Station Chamba-Jalandhar.

   • 220 kV D/C transmission line from GIS Pooling Station Chamba-Chamera HEP.

   • Jalandhar Sub-station Extension under Transmission System associated with Chamera-III HEP for 2009-14 period.

   • The Commission approved the tariff, stating that transmission charges would be shared by PTC/LANCO until the assets became part of the regional system, setting precedent for tariff allocation.

2. Petition No. 94/TT/2011: Filed seeking transmission charges for:

   • 400 kV S/C Chamera-II Pooling Station transmission line.

   • 400/220 kV 315 MVA ICT-I & ICT-II.

   • 80 MVAR Bus Reactor at pooling point under establishment of 400/220 kV GIS Pooling Station near Chamera-II HEP for the 2009-14 period.

   • The transmission charges were allowed, and the Commission held that these charges would be shared by PTC/LANCO as per the BPTA until they became part of the regional system, reinforcing the tariff-sharing agreement.

Subsequent Events

• PGCIL raised invoices on 2nd July, 2014, for Rs. 404.01 lakhs and Rs. 2511.59 lakhs to the Appellant towards transmission charges for the period between November 2011 and June 2012., clarifying the amounts in dispute.

• PGCIL filed Petition No. 528/TT/2014 and Petition No. 18/TT/2015 for truing up the tariff allowed in Petition No. 94/TT/2011 and Petition No. 92/TT/2011, respectively, adjusting the tariff to reflect actual costs.

Appellant's Grievances and Review Petitions

• The Appellant filed Interlocutory Applications seeking recall of the orders and quashing of PGCIL's invoices, which were converted into Review Petitions Nos. 65/RP/2016, 66/RP/2016, 18/RP/2017, 19/RP/2017, indicating a formal challenge to the invoices and orders.

• The Commission disposed of these petitions via a common order dated 10th May, 2019, leading to the current appeal.

Commission's Reasoning in the Impugned Order

• The transmission system was to be built by PGCIL for evacuating power from Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP, detailing the system's purpose.

• LGPPL was to bear the transmission charges until Chamera-III HEP was commissioned, specifying the initial agreement on cost coverage.

• The evacuation system arrangements were finalized in the 23rd Meeting of the Standing Committee, indicating a formal decision-making process.

• LGPPL agreed to bear the transmission charges from the commissioning of Budhil HEP to the anticipated date of commissioning of Chamera-III HEP, provided PGCIL's transmission system was ready, setting a condition for the agreement.

• The Commission noted an Indemnification Agreement between PGCIL and NHPC, stating that the defaulting party would compensate the other in case of delays,

• The Commission directed PGCIL to file a fresh petition impleading GBHPPL and NHPC to determine the sharing of transmission charges, indicating a shift in the liability assessment.

Issues Raised by the Appellant

• The Commission's order contradicted the original orders by implying the transmission charges should be shared by the Appellant and NHPC, leading to legal contention.

• The Appellant argued that the Commission did not consider the terms of the BPTA, which placed the liability on PTC, asserting contractual obligations.

PGCIL's Submissions

• The transmission system was planned considering the Appellant’s Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP of NHPC, reinforcing the system's initial objective.

• The Appellant agreed to bear transmission charges for the associated transmission system until it became part of the regional system, reiterating the initial agreement.

• The Appellant confirmed via letter dated 29th August, 2007, that it would pay the transmission charges of the line from Chamera-III to Chamba Pooling Station until the system became part of the regional grid, citing documentary evidence.

PTC's Submissions

• PTC referred to letters where the Appellant agreed to bear the transmission charges, presenting supporting documents.

• PTC argued that the defaulting party (the Appellant) should pay transmission charges due to the delay in commissioning its hydro power project, advocating for penalizing project delays.

Tribunal's Analysis

• The Tribunal noted the delays in commissioning both Budhil HEP and Chamera-II HEP, while PGCIL’s transmission system was commissioned on 1st November, 2011, underscoring timeline discrepancies.

• The Commission was found to have misread the BPTA in holding the Appellant liable with NHPC, as NHPC was not a party to the BPTA, pointing out a critical error in legal interpretation.

• The BPTA stipulated the sharing of transmission charges, with PTC also bearing a portion, clarifying the contractual obligations.

• Clause 1.0(a) of the BPTA provided that the long-term transmission customer (PTC) should share and pay transmission charges, highlighting a crucial clause.

• The Tribunal stated that prior representations by the Appellant were superseded by the execution of the BPTA dated 18th October, 2007, emphasizing the BPTA's legal precedence.

• The indemnification agreement between PGCIL and NHPC did not alter the provisions of the BPTA, reinforcing the contractual integrity of the BPTA.

Tribunal's Decision

• The Commission's order dated 10th May, 2019, and the orders dated 16th November, 2012, and 2nd January, 2013, were set aside, reversing previous decisions.

• The appeals were allowed, and Review Petitions filed by the Appellant before the Commission were also allowed, ruling in favor of the Appellant.

• The invoices dated 2nd July, 2014, issued by PGCIL in the name of the Appellant were quashed, nullifying the disputed charges.

• PGCIL (now CTUIL) was directed to issue fresh invoices in accordance with the provisions of the BPTA, mandating compliance with the original agreement.

Final Order

• The appeals were allowed on 5th May, 2025, marking the resolution date.