BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR

Petition No.1640 of 2017

In the Matter of:

Petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulations 23 and 80 of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 for direction/clarification that the Petitioners and the Respondent are permitted to jointly examine and discuss the techno-commercial issues of the Parallel Operation Charges in respect of the Captive Power Plants at Petitioner No. 1’s manufacturing plants/units situated at Dahej and Hazira, so as to evolve a mutually acceptable resolution under the aegis of the Commission.

Petitioner No. 1 : Limited, Vraj, Near Suvidha Shopping Centre, Paldi, Ahmedabad – 380007.

Petitioner No. 2 : Reliance Utilities and Power Private Limited, CPP Control Room, Village Padana, Taluka Lalpur, Jamnagar – 361280.

Represented By : Learned Senior Advocate Shri Saurabh Soparkar with Advocate Amrita Thakore

V/s.

Respondent : Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007.

Represented By : Shri N. P. Jadav and Ms. Venu Birappa

AND I.A. No. 14 of 2017 in Petition No.1640/2017

In the Matter of:

Application for impleadment as Respondent in Petition No. 1640 of 2017 filed by M/s. Reliance Industries Limited.

Applicant : Limited, Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007.

1 | Page

Represented By : Shri V. T. Patel and Shri H. H. Patel

Intervener : Laghu Udyog Bharati - Gujarat, 307, Ashram Avenue, B/h Kochrab Ashram, Near Paldi Cross Roads, Ahmedabad – 380 006.

Represented By : Shri S. C. Bohra

CORAM:

Shri P. J. Thakkar, Member Shri K. M. Shringarpure, Member Shri Anand Kumar, Chairman

Date: _16/02/2019.

DAILY ORDER

1. The matters were kept for hearing on 16.1.2019.

1.1. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Saurabh Soparkar, on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted

that the representatives of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents held joint meeting

and discussed technical-commercial aspects of the issues involved in the subject matter

of the present Petition. The Committees constituted for the said purpose have prepared

their reports and the same are submitted for consideration and decision of the

Commission. He also clarified about the earlier settlement between the parties as per

the directives of the Hon’ble High Court in its Order dated 28.04.2009 and the Order of

2 | Page

the Commission dated 01.06.2011 in Petition No. 256 of 2003 and the impact of the

incremental capacity of CGP at the Dahej and Hazira Complex of the Petitioner taking

into consideration the earlier Orders of the Commission as well as the settlement

between the Petitioner and GETCO.

2. Shri N. P. Jadav and Ms. Venu Birappa, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that

subsequent to the Commission’s Order dated 10.11.2017, joint examination was

carried out for mutually acceptable solution by committees consisting of

representatives of GETCO and the Petitioner. The officials of the Respondent visited the

existing CPPs of Petitioner at Dahej and Hazira and based on the visit and the technical

arrangements at site, the reports have been prepared by the committees and submitted

on record of this Petition for consideration and decision of the Commission.

3. Shri V. T. Patel, appearing on behalf of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL),

submitted that GUVNL had filed an IA seeking impleadment in the present petition,

being IA No. 14 of 2017, but they are now withdrawing the said application for

impleadment. The Commission may, therefore, permit the withdrawal of IA No. 14 of

2017.

4. Shri Sharad Bohra appearing on behalf of Laghu Udyog Bharti (LUB) submitted that an

application seeking impleadment as a party to the present petition has been filed vide

their letter dated 7.6.2017 wherein they have requested the Commission to direct the

Petitioner and the Respondent to provide them copies of the petition and submissions.

3 | Page

However, neither the copies of the petition, reply / submissions nor a copy of the

Committee reports, as referred today, are provided to them. Shri Raj Tillan made his

oral submissions with regard to technical and commercial aspects for levy of POC.

5. Shri Bharat Gohil, present during the hearing, on behalf of Utility Users’ Welfare

Association, submitted that since the outcome of Petition No. 1475/2015 would be

having direct bearing on the present petition, the Commission should decide the

aforesaid petition first.

6. Learned Advocate Shri Saurabh Soparkar, in reply, submitted that the intervenor LUB

has no locus standi in the present case. He also opposed the contention of UUWA with

regard to issues raised by them. He further submitted that they have no objection to

providing a copy of the petition, Committee reports and other documents to the

Intervenors but since both the Petitioner and the Respondent GETCO have made their

submissions, another hearing may not be necessary. The Commission may allow

parties to file their written submissions and thereafter, the matter may be decided.

7. We have noted the submissions made by the parties.

8. We note an IA, being IA No. 14 of 2017, seeking impleadment to present petition was

filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL). We also note that GUVNL has filed

an application on affidavit dated 18.12.2018 stating that they have decided not to

pursue the matter and sought permission of the Commission for withdrawal of the said

impleadment application. On the date of hearing i.e. 16.01.2019, Shri V. T. Patel,

4 | Page

appearing on behalf of GUVNL reiterated the facts stated in affidavit dated 18.12.2018

and submitted that the Commission may allow the applicant to withdraw the aforesaid

IA. Accordingly, we permit the withdrawal of IA No. 14 of 2017 filed by GUVNL and the

said IA is disposed of as withdrawn.

9. We note that an application has been filed by Laghu Udyog Bharati seeking

impleadment and an opportunity of hearing. We note that the subject matter of the

present Petition is to direct the Petitioner and the Respondent to jointly examine the

technical and commercial issues of parallel operation charges in respect of the

Petitioner’s CGPs and evolve a mutually acceptable resolution subject to the approval

of the Commission. The Commission vide Order dated 10.11.2017 decided that it does

not have any objection to the parties entering into joint discussion and arriving at a

mutually acceptable solution with a caveat that the Commission shall finally decide

whether such solution is within the four corners of law and whether the comments/

suggestions of any other stakeholders are necessary before finally approving it. The

Petitioner and the Respondent have examined the issue from technical perspectives

and have submitted the reports of the Committees for consideration and decision of

the Commission. The Respondent submitted that as regards the technical issues, they

are satisfied with the arrangement that the Petitioner has put in place, while the

Commission may take a view on the commercial issues. In this regard, the Petitioner

submitted that he will accept the decision of the Commission in Petition No. 1475 of

2015 as far as commercial issues under this petition are concerned. LUB which is an

organization of small scale industries desired to join as a party impleader in the present

5 | Page

matter. The Petitioner objected the impleadment on the ground that LUB has no locus

standi in the matter. Since, it is for the Commission to seek the comments/suggestions

of any other stakeholders as per Order dated 10.11.2017, we decide and direct the

Petitioner to provide a copy of the Petition and all the documents to LUB and other

objectors who were present in the hearing held on 16.1.2019. The Objectors have

liberty to file their submissions within 15 days from the receipt of the same with a copy

to the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner and the Respondent may file their

submissions if any, on the submissions of the Objectors with a copy to them within 15

days thereafter.

10. After receipt of submissions from the Objectors, the Petitioner and the Respondent, the

Commission shall pass appropriate order.

11. The matter is reserved for Order.

12. We order accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

[ P. J. THAKKAR] [K. M. SHRINGARPURE] [ANAND KUMAR]

MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRMAN

Place: Gandhinagar. Date: 16/02/2019

6 | Page