Case: MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. DGM (COMMERCIAL) SANJEEV KHARE Vs. M/S DHAR WIND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ANIL MISRA

to all new wind electric generation projects which were commissioned at 00.00 hrs on 1 April 2016 or thereafter. The SLDC was required by Para 4.2 of the Tariff Order to submit a list of WEGs commissioned during the month of March 2016 from 00.00 hrs of 1 March 2016 to 24.00 hrs of 31 March 2016. This data was sought in order to provide an objective basis of determining whether a project had been commissioned before the new Tariff Order became applicable to projects which were commissioned with effect from 1 April 2016.23. In line with the above provisions, the guidelines that were issued by the first appellant on 18 March 2016 provided a format for the issuance of commissioning certificates. The format required readings of: (i) WTG meters; (ii) main billing meters; and (iii) check billing meters. The format required the submission of this data in order to establish the date on which a particular project had been commissioned. The actual date of commissioning would determine the applicable tariff; the tariff of Rs 5.92 per unit would apply to projects which were commissioned on or before 31 March 2016, while the new rate of Rs 4.78 per unit would apply to projects which were commissioned on or after 1 April 2016. Requiring the SLDC to submit data of the actual injection of power into the grid was with the objective of establishing the actual commissioning of the project.24. In the present case, the principal submission of the appellants is that the data which was furnished by the SLDC indicates that the actual injection of power into the grid by the first respondent took place on 1 April 2016. It is on that basis that the first appellant has submitted that the commissioning certificate was not in accordance with the prescribed format and had to be revoked. Before this Court, the data which has been furnished by the SLDC is not in dispute. Indeed, that is the basis on which Mr Vivek K Tankha, learned senior counsel urged his alternative submission that in any event, even going by the SLDC data, it is evident that the power was injected into the grid on and from 1 April 2016.25. On reviewing the docmentary material on the record, we are not prepared to accept the view which has weighed with the High Court, namely, that the commissioning of the project was completed by 31 March 2016. The certificate of commissioning which has been issued by the Superintending Engineer is belied by the objective factual data available from the SLDC which is a statutory body constituted under Section 31 of the Act. The objective data on the record indicates that the injection of power into the grid took place on 1 April 2016. Hence, we are of the view that this should be the basis on which the claim for the entering into a PPA should be founded.26. Since the factual data has been placed before this Court, we are of the view that the project of the first respondent was commissioned on 1 April 2016 since the SLDC data indicates the injection of power into the grid with effect from that date. On the basis of the commissioning of the project on 1 April 2016, we find merit in the alternative submission which has been urged on behalf of the first respondent in the appeals that the Tariff Order that must apply is the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016. The first respondent was before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in writ proceedings espousing its claim to the benefit of a higher rate of Rs 5.92 per unit on the basis of the earlier Tariff Order and on the basis that the commissioning of its project had taken place on 31 March 2016. The first respondent was bona fide pursuing its claim in that regard which found acceptance in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Though we have differed with the view which has been taken by the High Court, we are of the view that it would be unfair to deny to the first respondent the benefit of the rate which came to be prescribed by the Tariff Order of 17 March 2016. The rate which was prescribed by that Tariff Order of Rs 4.78 per unit was to apply during the control period beginning from 1 April 2016 and ending on 31 March 2019 and that rate would continue to govern the life cycle of 25 years, as prescribed by Para 5 of the Tariff Order. The first respondent cannot be denied a parity of treatment, as has been allowed to other projects of a similar nature which would be governed by the control period stipulated in Para 5 of the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016.27. The competitive bidding guidelines upon which reliance has been placed by Mr Nitin Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, were formulated by the Union Ministry of Power subsequently on 8 December 2017. Moreover, Para 3.1 of those guidelines is not applicable to the project of the first respondent. Para 3.1 provides thus:?3. APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES3.1 These Guidelines are being issued under the provisions of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for long-term procurement of electricity through competitive bidding process, by the ‘Procurer(s)?, from grid-connected Wind Power Projects (‘WPP?) having, (a) individual size of 5 MW and above at one site with minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for intra-state projects; and (b) individual size of 50 MW and above at one site with minimum bid capacity of 50 MW for inter-state projects.?(emphasis supplied)28. The above guidelines apply to grid-connected Wind Power Projects with an individual size of 5 MW and above at one site with a minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for intra-State projects. Since the first respondent is admittedly an intra-State project and does not fulfil the above requirement, the guidelines (which in any event came into force subsequently) will have no application.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]24. In the present case, the principal submission of the appellants is that the data which was furnished by the SLDC indicates that the actual injection of power into the grid by the first respondent took place on 1 April 2016. It is on that basis that the first appellant has submitted that the commissioning certificate was not in accordance with the prescribed format and had to be revoked. Before this Court, the data which has been furnished by the SLDC is not in dispute. Indeed, that is the basis on which Mr Vivek K Tankha, learned senior counsel urged his alternative submission that in any event, even going by the SLDC data, it is evident that the power was injected into the grid on and from 1 April 2016.25. On reviewing the docmentary material on the record, we are not prepared to accept the view which has weighed with the High Court, namely, that the commissioning of the project was completed by 31 March 2016. The certificate of commissioning which has been issued by the Superintending Engineer is belied by the objective factual data available from the SLDC which is a statutory body constituted under Section 31 of the Act. The objective data on the record indicates that the injection of power into the grid took place on 1 April 2016. Hence, we are of the view that this should be the basis on which the claim for the entering into a PPA should be founded.26. Since the factual data has been placed before this Court, we are of the view that the project of the first respondent was commissioned on 1 April 2016 since the SLDC data indicates the injection of power into the grid with effect from that date. On the basis of the commissioning of the project on 1 April 2016, we find merit in the alternative submission which has been urged on behalf of the first respondent in the appeals that the Tariff Order that must apply is the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016. The first respondent was before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in writ proceedings espousing its claim to the benefit of a higher rate of Rs 5.92 per unit on the basis of the earlier Tariff Order and on the basis that the commissioning of its project had taken place on 31 March 2016. The first respondent was bona fide pursuing its claim in that regard which found acceptance in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Though we have differed with the view which has been taken by the High Court, we are of the view that it would be unfair to deny to the first respondent the benefit of the rate which came to be prescribed by the Tariff Order of 17 March 2016. The rate which was prescribed by that Tariff Order of Rs 4.78 per unit was to apply during the control period beginning from 1 April 2016 and ending on 31 March 2019 and that rate would continue to govern the life cycle of 25 years, as prescribed by Para 5 of the Tariff Order. The first respondent cannot be denied a parity of treatment, as has been allowed to other projects of a similar nature which would be governed by the control period stipulated in Para 5 of the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016.27. The competitive bidding guidelines upon which reliance has been placed by Mr Nitin Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, were formulated by the Union Ministry of Power subsequently on 8 December 2017. Moreover, Para 3.1 of those guidelines is not applicable to the project of the first respondent.APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES3.1 These Guidelines are being issued under the provisions of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for long-term procurement of electricity through competitive bidding process, by the ‘Procurer(s)?, from grid-connected Wind Power Projects (‘WPP?) having, (a) individual size of 5 MW and above at one site with minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for intra-state projects; and (b) individual size of 50 MW and above at one site with minimum bid capacity of 50 MW for inter-state. The above guidelines apply to grid-connected Wind Power Projects with an individual size of 5 MW and above at one site with a minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for intra-State projects. Since the first respondent is admittedly an intra-State project and does not fulfil the above requirement, the guidelines (which in any event came into force subsequently) will have no application.In line with the above provisions, the guidelines that were issued by the first appellant on 18 March 2016 provided a format for the issuance of commissioning certificates. The format required readings of: (i) WTG meters; (ii) main billing meters; and (iii) check billing meters. The format required the submission of this data in order to establish the date on which a particular project had been commissioned. The actual date of commissioning would determine the applicable tariff; the tariff of Rs 5.92 per unit would apply to projects which were commissioned on or before 31 March 2016, while the new rate of Rs 4.78 per unit would apply to projects which were commissioned on or after 1 April 2016. Requiring the SLDC to submit data of the actual injection of power into the grid was with the objective of establishing the actual commissioning of the project.