Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the allocation of standby electricity charges at approximately 23% to BSES/REL and 77% to Tata Power for the disputed period. A 275 MVA standby entitlement did not justify mechanically splitting Tata Power’s 550 MVA MSEB standby bill equally. The approved allocation accounted for existing tariff recoveries, generation and supply arrangements, and standby supplied predominantly from Tata Power’s own capacity. Both utilities’ appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether Tata Power could require equal sharing of its MSEB standby charges.
- Whether the majority APTEL allocation warranted interference.
- How the amount deposited or secured before the Supreme Court should be released.
Held
- The standby arrangements between MSEB and Tata Power and between Tata Power and BSES/REL were distinct. The latter arrangement did not justify automatic 50:50 sharing of Tata Power’s MSEB liability. (¶¶ 10–13, 24–29, 31)
- The approximately 23:77 allocation was reasonable and equitable on the several relevant factors, including charges already recovered through tariff, the agreed framework and the utilities’ respective requirements. BSES/REL drew standby from Tata Power’s own generation on about 90% of occasions. (¶ 28–31)
- The earlier ruling that Tata Power’s unilateral tariff notice lacked legal effect remained applicable. The Court found no Article 14 basis for upsetting the allocation. (¶¶ 30, 33)
- No case for interference was made out in either utility’s appeal. With the parties’ agreement, the amount payable to Reliance Energy, deposited or secured by Tata Power, together with interest lying with the Registrar, was directed to Adani Electricity Mumbai. (¶ 32–35)
Result
Both appeals dismissed without costs; APTEL Technical and Judicial Members’ majority order upheld. Substitution of Adani Electricity Mumbai allowed, and the amount payable to Reliance Energy under the deposit/security arrangement, with interest lying with the Registrar, directed to Adani. Applications disposed of.