S"wie l -y;f •»•• •••- ^ c -• (,- , \s-3 1^ IN_T!jE__HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS:}}^ ^ ^^^ r^^yr ^•^^'' y^ X*- W.P.C No.....ea^.^......./2011 T »- ^indal Electricity Generation Pvt. .Ltd.Through its Director Shri Satish AgrawalsonofShriOmPrakash Agrawal,agedabout42years, residentofMainRoad,Near Gurudwara,Bagbara,Distt. Mahasamund ,(Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /^ State Load Dispatch Centre, Dagania,Raipur,Chhattisgarh throughitsauthorizedsignatory Sandeep Ghule son of Shri M.R. Ghule,agedabout 51 years, resident of Suryavihar Colony, Bhilai, The. & Distt. Chhattisgarh. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- .l< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.6894 OF 2011 PETITIONER Jindal Electricity Generation Pvt. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS State Load Dispatch Centre (/ \ (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER .T3 (Passed on this 23'° day of November, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 28-6-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short "the Commission") in petition No.43 of 2010 (D) [State Load Despatch Centre, Raipur v. M/s Jindal Electricity Generation Pvt. Ltd.. Raipui}. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner while installing 8 MW biomass-based power generating plant near Bagbahara submitted an application dated 24-7-2009 (Annexure - P/2 page 29) to the respondent for availing short-term open access. On seeking confirmation by the respondent, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (for short "CSPDCL") informed that 8 MW power plant of the petitioner has no connectivity with the grid. Similarly, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (for short "CSPTCL") confirmed that the petitioner has not installed ABT meter along with necessary metering equipment and data communication facility. The same was communicated by the respondent to the petitioner vide letter dated 6-8-2009 (Annexure P/2 page 37). The petitioner again submitted an application dated 31-12-2009 (Annexure P/2 page 38) for short-term open access. On further confirmation from CSPDCL & CSPTCL about not having connectivity and metering arrangement, the application for short-term open access was rejected by the respondent on 14-1-2010 (Annexure - P/2 page 43) by ''•i ^"s s. 3 *1>. -c? s '•^^-jr^.^' 4. lf/^ intimating the reasons for the same. Subsequently, after having connectivity and installation of the meter and on receipt of short-term open access application dated 27-1-2010 (Annexure - P/2 page 44) of the petitioner, the short-term open access for 6 MW of power was allbwed by the respondent for the period from 30-1-2010 to 28-2-2010. It was subsequently extended from 1-3-2010 to 31-3-2010 and from 1-4-2010 to 30-4-2010. During the period of availing short-term open access by the petitioner, the respondent observed quite large deviation (under injection) with respect to scheduled quantum of power during the month of January, February and March 2010 to the extent of 89.2%, 96.5% and 97.84%, respectively and no injection of power from 15-4-2010 though scheduling was done by the petitioner for 6-7 MW. Thus, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 23-4-2010 (Annexure - • P/2 page 58). The respondent again issued a letter to the petitioner on 26-4-2010 (Annexure - P/2 page 59) advising to arrange revision of scheduling of power to the extent of its actual availability, but no action was taken by the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent observed that the petitioner had stopped payment of Ul, transmission and wheeling charges accumulated to the extent of 161.9 lakhs, thus, subsequent application .of the petitioner for short-term open access was rejected by the respondent. Since, the petitioner did not make any payment despite follow-up by the respondent, aggrieved with this, the respondent filed the petition before the Commission and prayed that the petitioner may be debarred from availing open access in future. In the said petition, the Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein shall be liable to utilize the grid only after payment of the outstanding dues against it. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitipner submits that all of a sudden at the time of commencement of power supply CSPDCL asked the petitioner to disconnect power supply of rice mill. Learned counsel further submits that the power injecting point was tripping and uoiiejepisuoo o)ui saieo jeuoitiisd sq) Aq pssodojd se siueiuiietsui ui speu) sq pinoqs lueujAed si|} jsq}si)M O)SB uoiissnb sqj. •sq»|E] OO'OS'sy io stusLuiieisui A|I|IUOLU ui lunouie soueieq sqi pue lusiuAed leifiu] SB ejojo QO'l-'sy P uins e jisodep o) psjsyo peq jsuoitiisd si|) se 'ssnp ai|i Aed o) Ai!|!qei| sii psniujpe seq jsuoiiiisd sqi •}! isuieBe ssnp Buipueistno SL|I jo lueujAed jsye A[UO puB 341 sziiiin 01 eiqBii sq iieqs jsuoiiiisd 941 )Bqi pajepjo A|Buipjoooe pue ^siisj ujusiui Aue joj p3|l!ius lou si jsuoiiiied SL|} leqi uoisniouoo 841 o) siueo A]]BUU UOISSILULUOO 941 'uoitBAjssqo piessjoje sq) Buipjoosj jayy 'ssBjeqo in Ajesseoeu aq} Aed oi 8|qei| si jsuoiiKsd sq} 'lOQdSO 341 01 suiepsd A]|en}OB jsuoitiisd sqi Aq p|os pue p9|np3i|os jeMod ^o sousjsyip sqi 'snqj. 'sinpsqos eq} ueq} jsMOd sss| qoniu Buiiosfui Aq SSSOOB usdo 8}e}s--i8iu! uuj9)-poqs BuiiiBAe Aq )] Aq peinpsqos jsMod jo tus}x8 94) o) e}e}S 841 spisino jeMod p|os seq jsuoiiitsd sqt teqi ps/uesqo UOISSILULUOO sqi •oiejeqi pspusdde siusujnoop sqi pue sBuipeeid sqt pesmsd 'jeuofliisd sqi joi Buuesdde [ssunoo psujesi pjesq SABLI | •MB| io soAs sqi ui siqeuieisns ||e (B )ou si qoiqM 'JSUUBUI Aiseq B ui jspjo psuBndLUi sqi pessed seq yjids pue jsiia| sti ui sseo 34} jo ssoueisLunojio pue spe^ sqi Buiieioajdde (noqiiM UOISSILULUOQ aq) leqi syuiqns IIXIQ ULJS 's6jeqo in Aed o) siqei] tou si jsuoiiiisd 941 'ssoueisiunojio assqi japun 'ussfe) SBM uoiioe ou }nq jSMod ^o uoiiEjsueB joj A]ddns jsmod sj0)ssj 01 pue s(U3LU[[etsu! ui ssnp Bu!pue}S)no ideooe o) luspuodsej sqt o) peqoeojdde peq jsuoiti}sd leqi psieis OS|B si t| 'psiiddns pue psiEjausB eq )ou p[noo ABjsue pue pus BUIMSOSJ }e synojio ^o Buiddu} lusnbsj^ ^o msiA ui ABjeue siejeusB tou p]noo Asqi IBL|I s)iLuqns pou issunoo peujesi •(AisMpsdsej 'gg '? t^S '£8 seBed g/d - ajnxsuuv) Ol.OZ-Z-91. pue OI.OZ-Z-8 'OI.OZ-Z-Z PStep uo sjsusi BUIIUM JSUB ssjnsesiu [BipsLuaj 9>|ei o) psiiej tuspuodssj sqi pue sMios^sp Buisq luiod BUIAISOSJ SLIJ^ 'psiosfui sq }ou p]noo jeMod uoseej pies 0} snp ;j ^.^F' if-y y~ •"S>'.. 18;'- "•^S-tas^'- ''' ^ Gowri 4 before the Commission. The Commission found that the initial payment made by the petitioner through cheques were dishonoured and in this regard cases are pending under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Thus, the Commission rightly rejected the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner herein and had ordered to settle the dues. The impugned order is just & proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. :Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMORI Judge