CASE TITLE
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VS ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED & ANR
COURT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. B.R. GAVAI
DATE OF ORDER
20th APRIL, 2023
PARTIES
APPELLANT- MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED
RESPONDENT- ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA
LIMITED AND ANOTHER
SUBJECT
The apex court deals with the adjudication of the question that whether the SHAKTI Policy amounts to Change in Law or not.
OVERVIEW
- The present appeal is filed before the apex court against the judgement passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity on 28th September,2002.
- Adani Power Maharastra Limited (APML) aggrieved by change in law by Ministry of Coal who brought into force New Coal Distribution Policy, 2013, filed a petition seeking compensation in tariff before Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission.
- The petition was allowed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) on 7th March,2018. However, APML preferred review petition for seeking extension of relief for domestic Coal under the change in law. Petition was allowed by MERC due to introduction of the SHAKTI Policy.
- Cross appeals were filed before by APML and MSEDCL before Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The appeal by former was allowed while latter was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is preferred.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT
- The learned counsel submitted that the SHAKTI Policy is continuation of NCDP 2007 but this was not paid due consideration by the APTEL.
- It was contended that there is no need of compensation to APML for shortage of coal supply as because under SHAKTI Policy there was 100% assured coal supply.
- It was further submitted that the APML has failed to comply with the provision of serving mandatory notice to MSEDCL for Change in Law as per Article 13.3.2 of 1320 MW PPA.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The counsel contended that the SHAKTI Policy is a Change in Law event.
- The counsel submitted that the court needs to intervene with the matter of mandatory notice when findings have extraneous basis.
- It was prayed to dismiss the appeal.
JUDGEMENT
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held view of APTEL as non-arbitrary. It was held that the appeals do not require interference by this court.
- The court observed that the decision of the APTEL was relevant and not based on extraneous findings.
- It was held by the Court that the SHAKTI Policy restores position of NCDP,2007 is factually incorrect. It assures 70% of ACQ as against the 100% in NCDP 2007.
- It was held that as per restitution of principle, the account of change in law will also be applicable on account of change occurred due to SHAKTI Policy.
- It was also observed that the appellant has already been provided the allowance of carrying cost.
CONCLUSION
The apex court upheld the judgement passed by the tribunal and affirmed that no violation of any statutory provisions took place. Court referred to the ADANI RAJASTHAN CASE and ENERGY WATCHDOG CASE wherein it was observed that on account of change in law, generating companies are entitled for compensation. This is to restore the economic position of the parties similar to the position before the change in law.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
