Powergrid Corp.Of India Ltd vs Cen.Elect.Regul.Commn

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5857-5858 OF 2011

POWERGRID COPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This order will dispose of both Civil Appeal Nos. 5857

and 5858 of 2011.

2. Since both the civil appeals filed by the appellant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2025.05.05 17:18:51 IST Reason:

under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 arise out of the

1 common order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the Appellate

Tribunal for Electricity in Appeal Nos. 91-92 of 2009 with the

issue being inter-related and between the same parties, both

the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by

this common order.

3. Appellant in this case is Powergrid Corporation of

India Limited.

4. In Appeal No. 91 of 2009, the challenge made was to

the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission in Petition No. 68 of 2008. In Appeal No.

92 of 2009, challenge made was to the order dated 03.02.2009

passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in

Petition No. 80/2008. Both Appeal Nos. 91 and 92 of 2009 were

dismissed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

vide the order dated 23.03.2011 (impugned order).

5. Hence, the two appeals.

6. This Court by order dated 01.08.2011 had issued

notice.

2

7. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.

8. Appellant Powergrid Corporation of India Limited (for

short ‘Powergrid’) is a public sector undertaking of the

Government of India. It is mainly engaged in the business

of transmission of power through its transmission network.

It discharges its statutory functions under the Electricity Act,

2003 and transmits electricity throughout the country. On the

other hand, respondent No. 1 is the Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission. It is a statutory body established

under the provisions of the erstwhile Electricity Regulatory

Commission Act, 1998 (since repealed). After coming into force

of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission (‘CERC’ for short) began to exercise its functions

under the said statute.

9. At the relevant point of time, appellant was a central

transmission utility responsible for establishing transmission

assets of Inter-State Transmission Systems (‘ISTS’ for short)

dealing with planning and transmission of electricity. Amongst

others, appellant owned and operated two transmission

3 systems in the northern region: Rihand I and Rihand II. Rihand

I comprises of Mandola and Ballabgarh sub-stations whereas

Rihand II comprises of Kaithal, Mainpuri and Abdullapur sub-

stations. Rihand I had three Inter-connecting Transformers

(‘ICT’ for short): one at Ballabgarh and two at Mandola. Rihand

II had four ICTs: two at Kaithal and two at Mainpuri.

10. Between 28.04.2006 and 09.05.2006, all the three

transformers in the Rihand I transmission system failed and

broke down. In fact, those were burnt and damaged due to

internal faults. Considering that it was peak summer season

with high anticipated load demand in the National Capital

Territory of Delhi, the transformers were required to be replaced

immediately. According to the appellant, procurement of new

transformers would have taken a long time. Therefore, it was

decided to temporarily take out one transformer each from

Mainpuri and Kaithal sub-stations and to divert the same to

Ballabgarh and Mandola. It was also decided to divert one

transformer which was procured for Bahadurgarh sub-station

4 to Mandola as commissioning at Bahadurgarh was scheduled

later.

11. Accordingly, appellant restored the transformers at

Ballabgarh and Mandola during the period from 29.05.2006 to

19.06.2006. The ICTs that were taken out from Mainpuri and

Kaithal were restored by January and February, 2007 by

new/repaired transformers.

12. Thereafter, appellant filed a petition before the CERC

for approval of the transmission charges for the three replaced

ICTs in Rihand I based on the Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004

(referred to hereinafter as ‘the Tariff Regulations’). The said

petition was registered as Petition No. 68 of 2008. Appellant

claimed de-capitalization for the transformers taken out from

Mainpuri and Kaithal and additional capitalization for the

new/repaired transformer originally procured for Bahadurgarh

sub-station and installed at the two sub-stations of Mandola

and Ballabgarh.

5

13. By order dated 03.02.2009, CERC did not allow the

claim of the appellant and dismissed Petition No. 68 of 2008.

14. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred Appeal

No. 91 of 2009 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

(‘Appellate Tribunal’ for short).

15. On 09.05.2006, the tariff for the Rihand

transmission systems were determined by the CERC for the

period from 01.04.2004 to 02.04.2009. On 04.09.2008,

appellant filed a petition before the CERC for revision of tariff in

respect of the Rihand transmission system for the period upto

02.04.2009 considering the net additional capitalization on

account of replacement of the three burnt ICTs at Mandola and

Ballabgarh. Appellant also sought for a direction to the

Northern Regional Power Committee for issuance of revised

availability certificate excluding the period when the three ICTs

were decapitalized and not in use. According to the appellant,

an availability certificate was required for claiming full

transmission charges and incentives. It was registered as

Petition No. 80 of 2008.

6

16. CERC vide the order dated 03.02.2009 disallowed the

claim of the appellant for decapitalization of the damaged

transformers and recapitalization of the installed transformers

as replacement for the damaged transformers. CERC further

held that the net cost for such replacement has to be met out

from the insurance fund reserve maintained by the appellant

under the internal insurance policy for which contribution was

being paid by the beneficiaries in the form of operations and

maintenance expenses. Further, CERC also did not accede to

the prayer of the appellant for giving directions to the Northern

Regional Power Committee for issuance of revised availability

certificate. Accordingly, vide the aforesaid order dated

03.02.2009, Petition No. 80 of 2008 filed by the appellant was

dismissed.

17. This led to filing of Appeal No. 92 of 2009 by the

appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were

heard together by the Appellate Tribunal; and vide the

impugned order dated 23.03.2011 dismissed the two appeals as

being devoid of merit.

7

18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

Appellate Tribunal had virtually rubber stamped the findings

arrived at by the CERC. That apart it had interpreted Regulation

53(2)(iv) and Note 2 of the Tariff Regulations in a most illogical

manner. If this is the interpretation, then no transmission

licensee will ever get additional capitalization on restoration and

replacement of the ICTs. He also submits that interpretation of

the Appellate Tribunal viz-a-viz the self-insurance policy is

wholly illogical without appreciating that the fire had occurred

as a result of the machinery breakdown and hence it is not

covered under the self-insurance policy.

18.1. Because of such erroneous decision, appellant has

been denied Rs. 15.63 crores on account of capitalization and

Rs. 4.58 crores on account of tariff qua Rihand I transmission

system and Rs. 3.54 crores on account of capitalization qua

Rihand II transmission system.

18.2. He submits that in April-May, 2006, the three ICTs at

Mandola and Ballabhgarh were damaged due to internal faults

8 i.e. machinery breakdown which resulted in the burning of the

ICTs.

19. Learned counsel again referred to Regulation 53(2) of

the Tariff Regulations and submits that any work that may be

required to be done by a transmission licensee for successfully

operating the transmission system is permissible expenditure

for capitalization, whether it is a new work or a replacement.

Any other interpretation would render the aforesaid provision

particularly Note 2 meaningless. Contrary to this Appellate

Tribunal has returned a finding that replacement of

ICTs/transformers is neither an additional work necessary for

efficient and successful operation nor an old asset requiring

replacement. Such a finding is unsustainable.

19.1. It is further submitted that Appellate Tribunal was

not justified in denying decapitalization and additional

capitalization of the ICTs on the ground that it was the

responsibility of the appellant for maintenance of the

transmission system. Appellant’s decapitalization and

capitalization were under the terms of accepted accounting

9 practice. By not factoring in the said expenditure as additional

capitalization for the value of the ICTs has led to a non-cost

reflective tariff being paid to the appellant. Finding rendered by

the Appellate Tribunal that provisions of Regulation 53 of the

Tariff Regulations does not cover replacement of damaged

ICTs/transformers is incorrect for the reason that any

additional expenditure is contemplated to be an additional

capitalization if it relates to the efficient and successful

operation of the project. Regulation 53 cannot be interpreted in

a narrow and pedantic manner.

19.2. Referring to the self-insurance policy of the appellant,

learned counsel submits that the same covers losses from fire,

whether it is internal or external or even if it is due to machinery

breakdown. Fire was not the direct cause of the damage to the

ICTs/transformers; rather it was machinery failure that possibly

led to the fire. Learned counsel submits that if the fire had

caused the machinery breakdown, the coverage will be available

under the self-insurance policy as the proximate cause in such

a case would be the fire. In this connection he has placed

10 reliance on a decision of this Court in New India Assurance

Company Limited Vs. Zuari Industries Limited 1 . He has also

placed reliance on another decision of this Court in Gujarat Urja

Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private

Limited 2 to contend that Appellate Tribunal virtually rubber

stamped the decision of CERC.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for some of the

respondents i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 10, who are the

beneficiaries, supported the order of CERC as well as that of the

Appellate Tribunal.

20.1. It is submitted that appellant under the statute is

under an obligation to maintain a healthy transmission system.

For maintenance of the transmission system, the beneficiaries

are not required to pay additional amount. The very concept of

additional capitalization is based on the premise that in case

any additional benefit is given to the beneficiaries, the amount

can be capitalized. It is contended that by replacement of the

1 (2009) 9 SCC 70 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 411 11 failed transformers no additional benefit is given to the

beneficiaries. Hence, the amount claimed for replacement of the

transformers cannot be capitalized.

20.2. Appellant had also shown a huge figure as cost of the

installed transformers though such transformers were not new

ones. Actual cost of the transformers would be much less. The

differential amount cannot be capitalized.

20.3. Adverting to Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations,

it is submitted that additional capitalization can be claimed only

in respect of the works in the original scope of the project. That

apart, additional capitalization can be claimed due to change in

law or on account of any award passed in arbitration, decree of

court, etc. Replacement of transformers does not fall in any of

such categories. Hence, the amounts claimed in both the

appeals cannot be capitalized.

20.4. The self-insurance reserve policy of the appellant

covers unsecured risks. The policy does not say that it will not

cover the risk regarding failure of transformers. If the appellant

12 had not secured that risk in the policy, it cannot be allowed to

penalise the beneficiaries.

20.5. Learned counsel has also justified the decision of the

Appellate Tribunal declining to issue directions to Northern

Regional Power Committee (NRPC).

20.6. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the

appeals which should be dismissed.

21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

have received the due consideration of the Court.

22. Upon perusal of the materials on record and after

hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that

the following questions arise for our consideration in this case:

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal and respondent

No.1 were justified in rejecting the claim made

by the appellant of additional capitalization due to

replacement of the damaged ICTs?

2. Whether the self-insurance policy of the appellant

covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs?

13 3. Whether the Member Secretary of NRPC should

have been directed by the Appellate Tribunal to issue

revised availability certificate for the transmission

assets?

23. To consolidate all the laws relating to generation,

transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and

generally for taking measures conducive to development of the

electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting

the interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas,

rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies

regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally

benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority,

Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate

Tribunal and for such related matters, the Electricity Act has

been enacted. Whether it is Appellate Tribunal traceable to

Section 110 or the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

(CERC) referred to in Section 76(1) or Central Transmission

Utility meaning any government company which the Central

Government may notify under sub-section (1) of Section 38,

14 such as the appellant, all are covered by provisions of the

Electricity Act. It also provides for appeal to the Supreme Court,

as in the present case, under Section 125 against any decision

or order of the Appellate Tribunal on a substantial question of

law.

24. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 178

of the Electricity Act and all other powers enabling in this behalf

and after previous publication, CERC has made the Tariff

Regulations which came into force on 01.04.2004.

25. The scope and extent of application of the Tariff

Regulations is provided in Regulation 2. As per clause (1), where

tariff is determined through a transparent process of bidding in

accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central

Government, CERC shall adopt such tariff in accordance with

the provisions of the Electricity Act. Clause (2) says that the

Tariff Regulations shall apply in all such cases where tariff is to

be determined by the CERC based on capital cost. Ofcourse, the

CERC has the authority to prescribe relaxed norms of

application for determination of tariff.

15

26. Chapter - 2 of the Tariff Regulations deals with

thermal power generating stations. Regulations 14 and 18 are

included in Chapter - 2.

26.1. Regulation 14(xviii) defines ‘Operation and

Maintenance Expenses’ or O&M expenses to mean the

expenditure incurred on operation and maintenance of the

generating station including part thereof and includes the

expenditure on manpower, repairs, spares, consumables,

insurance and overhead.

26.2. Regulation 18 deals with additional capitalization.

Regulation 18 is extracted hereunder:

18. Additional capitalisation: (1) The following capital expenditure within the original scope of work actually incurred after the date of commercial operation and up to the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:

(i) Deferred liabilities; (ii) Works deferred for execution;

(iii) Procurement of initial capital spares in the original scope of work, subject to ceiling specified in regulation 17;

16 (iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of the order or decree of a court;

and (v) On account of change in law.

Provided that original scope of work along with estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along with the application for provisional tariff.

Provided further that a list of the deferred liabilities and works deferred for execution shall be submitted along with the application for final tariff after the date of commercial operation of the generating station.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3) of this regulation, the capital expenditure of the following nature actually incurred after the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:

(i) Deferred liabilities relating to works/services within the original scope of work;

(ii) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of the order or decree of a court;

(iii) On account of change in law;

(iv) Any additional works/services which have become necessary for efficient and successful operation of the generating station, but not included in the original project cost; and

17

(v) Deferred works relating to ash pond or ash handling system in the original scope of work.

(3) Any expenditure on minor items/assets like normal tools and tackles, personal computers, furniture, air-conditioners, voltage stabilizers, refrigerators, fans, coolers, TV, washing machines, heat-convectors, carpets, mattresses etc. brought after the cut off date shall not be considered for additional capitalisation for determination of tariff with effect from 1.4.2004.

Note The list of items is illustrative and not exhaustive. (4) Impact of additional capitalisation in tariff revision may be considered by the Commission twice in a tariff period, including revision of tariff after the cut off date. Note 1 Any expenditure admitted on account of committed liabilities within the original scope of work and the expenditure deferred on techno-economic grounds but falling within the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation

20. Note 2 Any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall be considered after writing off the gross value of the original assets from the original project cost, except such items as are listed in clause (3) of this regulation.

18 Note 3 Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff on account of new works not in the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation

20. Note 4 Any expenditure admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff on renovation and modernization and life extension shall be serviced on normative debt- equity ratio specified in regulation 20 after writing off the original amount of the replaced assets from the original project cost.

27. To answer question No.1, it is necessary to advert to

Regulation 53 of the Tariff Regulations which is included in

Chapter - 4, the heading of which is Inter-State Transmission.

Regulation 53 reads thus:

53. Additional capitalisation: (1) The following capital expenditure within the original scope of work actually incurred after the date of commercial operation and up to the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:

(i) Deferred liabilities;

(ii) Works deferred for execution;

19 (iii) Procurement of initial capital spares in the original scope of works subject to the ceiling norm specified in regulation 52;

(iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or compliance of the order or decree of a court; and

(v) On account of change in law.

Provided that original scope of work along with estimates of expenditure shall be submitted along with the application for provisional tariff.

Provided further that a list of the deferred liabilities and works deferred for execution shall be submitted along with the application for final tariff after the date of commercial operation of the transmission system.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3) of this regulation, the capital expenditure of the following nature actually incurred after the cut off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check:

(i) Deferred liabilities relating to works/services within the original scope of work;

(ii) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or compliance of the order or decree of a court;

(iii) On account of change in law; and

20

(iv) Any additional works/services which have become necessary for efficient and successful operation of the project, but not included in the original project cost.

(3) Any expenditure on minor items/assets brought after the cut off date like tools and tackles, personal computers, furniture, air-conditioners, voltage stabilizers, refrigerators, coolers, fans, T.V., washing machine, heat-

convectors, mattresses, carpets, etc shall not be considered for additional capitalisation for determination of tariff with effect from 1.4.2004.

Note

The list of items is illustrative and not exhaustive.

(4) Impact of additional capitalisation in tariff revision may be considered by the Commission twice in a tariff period, including revision of tariff after the cut off date.

Note 1

Any expenditure admitted on account of committed liabilities within the original scope of work and the expenditure deferred on techno-economic grounds but falling within the original scope of work shall be serviced in the normative debt-equity ratio specified in regulation 54.

21 Note 2

Any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall be considered after writing off the entire value of the original assets from the original capital cost.

28. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that

Regulation 53 provides for additional capital expenditure

incurred after the commercial operation date. It says that

additional capital expenditure incurred after the commercial

operation date and upto the cut-off-date may be admitted by the

CERC if such expenditure relates to deferred liabilities, deferred

works, procurement of initial spares (within specified norms),

compliance with arbitral award or court order or change in law

subject to submission of necessary documents and a prudent

check. Post cut-off date, additional capitalization may still be

allowed for similar liabilities and more importantly essential

new works or services necessary for efficient project operation

but minor assets like furniture, computers or appliances are

excluded. It also provides that expenditure on replacement of

old assets shall be considered after the full value of the old asset

is written off and the impact of additional capitalization on tariff

22 can be considered by the CERC twice in a tariff period, including

revision of tariff after the cut off date.

29. Thus, it is evident that Regulation 53 does not

include within its scope replacement of ICTs due to damage or

failure. Regulation 53(2)(iv) says that any additional

work/services which have become necessary for the efficient

and successful operation of the project but not included in the

original project cost may be admitted by the CERC as additional

capital expenditure. Contention of the appellant that such a

provision would apply to it also does not appeal to the Court as

all that the appellant had done was diversion and replacement

of ICTs. This cannot be construed as doing any additional

work/services. On the contrary, we concur with the contention

of some of the respondents that as a central transmission utility,

it was the duty of the appellant to maintain a healthy

transmission system; replacement of damaged equipment(s) is

part of operation and maintenance.

30. Insofar Note 2 to Regulation 53 is concerned, it says

that any expenditure on replacement of old assets shall be

23 considered after writing off the entire value of the original assets

from the original capital cost. In this case, the transmission

systems were in normal operational condition since those were

commissioned. Both Rihand I and Rihand II cannot be

considered as old assets as these were fairly new. There is

nothing on record to show that prior to the breakdown of ICTs,

the transmission systems were in bad shape or had started

wearing out.

31. That being the position, the answer to question No.1

can only be in the affirmative, in favour of the respondents and

against the appellant.

32. This brings us to the second question which is as to

whether the self-insurance policy of the appellant covered the

cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs.

33. In the fiscal year 1994-1995, appellant opted to

adopt a self-insurance reserve policy based on its past

experience and in alignment with industry practices. The

decision was taken to allocate estimated appropriations in the

accounts for future losses potentially arising out of uninsured

24 risks, such as, machinery breakdown and fire risk of

equipments in operational sub-stations. Consequently, a self-

insurance account was created. The reserve was created at the

rate of 0.1 percent of the gross value of the fixed assets at the

close of each year covering potential future losses from

uninsured risks with the exception of those related to high

voltage direct current valve halls and sub-stations. The

insurance reserve covered losses caused by events such as fire

including by way of lightning, explosion/implosion, bush fires

etc. with such losses being adjusted against the insurance

reserve as per CERC’s guidelines upon actual occurrence. We

thus find that there are no inclusions or exclusions with regard

to loss caused by ‘fire’ nor does it include any exception to loss

caused by fire.

34. It is the contention of the appellant that it could not

take finance from the self-insurance reserve as the cause of the

loss to the ICTs was damage due to machinery breakdown

leading to fire. It is not the fire itself which damaged the ICTs.

We find such contention of the appellant to be contradictory.

25

35. Considering the above we are of the view that the loss

caused to the appellant by fire, whether by way of implosion or

by way of explosion, would be covered by the policy as it covered

all fires which caused loss without any exception and as all the

three ICTs were operating until those got burnt. Therefore, the

loss was caused due to fire because of which the ICTs became

damaged beyond immediate repair.

36. In Zuari Industries Limited (supra), this Court

analyzed the expression ‘proximate cause’. In that case there

was a short-circuit in the main switchboard installed in the

sub-station receiving electricity from the State Electricity Board.

This resulted in a flashover producing overcurrents. The

flashover and overcurrents generated excessive heat. The paint

on the panel board was charred by the excessive heat producing

smoke because of which the partition of the adjoining feeder

developed a hole. The smoke travelled to the generator

compartment where also there was short-circuit because of

which the power tripped. As a result, the entire electricity

supply to the plant stopped. Due to the stoppage of electric

26 supply, supply of water/stream to the waste heat boiler by the

flue gases at high temperature continued to be fed into the

boiler which resulted in damage to the boiler. It was in that

context that the court considered the question as to whether the

flashover or the fire was the proximate cause of the damage in

question. After a thorough analysis of the chain or sequence of

events, this Court took the view that the proximate cause is not

the cause which is nearest in point of time or place but the

active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train or chain of

event which brings about the ultimate result without the

intervention of any other force working from an independent

source. On that basis this Court held that the fire was the

efficient and active cause of the damage. Had the fire not

occurred, the damage also would not have occurred. There was

no intervening agency which was an independent source of the

damage. Therefore, this Court did not agree with the conclusion

of the Surveyor that the fire was not the cause of the damage to

the machinery of the claimant.

27

37. Applying the above principle to the facts of the

present case, it can be seen that the proximate cause for the

damage to the ICTs is the implosion/explosion in the

internal/external machinery of the ICTs which caused fire. All

the three ICTs became unserviceable due to the fire and had to

be replaced by the appellant. Appellant has admitted that

preventive maintenance and checks were done from time to time

prior to the incident and everything was going fine. It was only

when the fire broke out and damaged the ICTs did the

authorities concerned diverted other transformers for

replacement of the damaged transformers. Thus, our answer to

question No. 2 would be that the self-insurance policy of the

appellant covered the cost of replacement of the damaged ICTs.

Therefore, Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the

appellant to finance the net cost from the self-insurance fund

reserve as part of the operation and maintenance charges.

Accordingly, question No. 2 stands answered in the affirmative

and against the appellant.

28

38. Since we have decided question Nos.1 and 2 against

the appellant, question No.3 has become redundant as

decapitalization and additional capitalization of the replaced

ICTs have not been allowed. Therefore, question of issuing

direction to the Member-Secretary, NRPC for issuance of revised

availability certificate for the transmission assets does not arise.

39. Before parting with the record, we may refer to the

decision of this Court in Gujarat Ujra Vikas Nigam Limited

(supra) in which case this Court agreed with the appellant that

there was not a shred of evidence adduced by the respondent

beyond the bare allegation of coercion made against the

appellant. It was in that context this Court expressed surprise

as to how such a sweeping allegation of coercion was accepted

by the Appellate Tribunal de hors adequate pleadings. Therefore,

this Court opined that Appellate Tribunal had virtually rubber

stamped the findings of Gujarat Electricity Regulatory

Commission on coercion. Evidently, the above decision would

have no application to the facts of the present case. That apart,

Appellate Tribunal has given cogent and valid reasons while

29 rejecting the appeals of the appellant. We, therefore, do not find

any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

40. That being the position, we are of the considered

opinion that the two appeals are devoid of any merit.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No Cost.

………………………………J. [ABHAY S. OKA]

.……………………………J. [UJJAL BHUYAN] NEW DELHI;

MAY 05, 2025.

30