Re: CA No. 10120- 121 of 2016 - TECA vs TNERC & Ors

[D Balasundaram]

So, there goes a long battle.

What is the lesson in this for us  and TANGEDCO?

Can they repeat what they have done in 2014?

On 16 November 2016 at 13:47, chiefadvisor tasma <chiefa...@tasma.in> wrote:

Dear All,

In continuation of my WhatsApp update provided yesterday please find below the mail of our Supreme Court Advocate Mr.Kumar Mihir which is self explanatory. 

With Regards,​

Dr.K.Venkatachalam

Chief Advisor,
Tamilnadu Spinning Mills Association,
#2, Karur Road,Modern Nagar,
Dindigul - 624 001.
India
Land Line:       +91 99653 33318, +91 99655 33318

Direct Mobile:  +91 98421 33318,
URL: www.tasma.in

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kumar Mihir <

​​

mihir....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Subject: CA No. 10120- 121 of 2016 - TECA vs TNERC & Ors
To: chiefadvisor tasma <chiefa...@tasma.in>, "K.Venkatachalam" <kvmast...@gmail.com>

Dear Sir

The aforesaid matter was listed for hearing today as Item No.21 in Court No. 8 before a bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Ghose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.U. Lalit. 

When the matter was taken up for hearing, we duly appeared for and on your behalf and interalia submitted that:

1.  Appellate Tribunal has upheld the tariff orders passed by the State Commission without appreciating the fact that the same were passed in violation of Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the relevant data was not provided to the Stake Holders.

2. It was further submitted that the tariff orders were passed in contravention to the Tariff Regulations passed by the State Commission as no ARR or audited accounts were filed by the utilities nor any prudence check was carried out. 

We also pointed out that the Tariff orders suffered from several other defects as no capital investment plan was approved, auxiliary consumption was allowed in excess of what is provided in the Regulations and interest on loans, no voltage wise determination of cost of supply was undertaken, the utilities were wrongly allowed to recover a substantial portion of the generic loans and interest thereon taken to compensate for losses prior to true up. 

After hearing our submissions, the Hon'ble Court observed that there  has to be a finality in tariff determination exercise and consumers cannot be kept in suspense. Further, the Hon'ble Court observed that the consumers will have the opportunity to raise all their points at the time of true up and in no manner, will they face any prejudice. The Hon'ble Court finally observed that the appeal only raises questions of fact and no substantial question of law arises therein and accordingly, declined to interfere in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

We have applied for a certified copy of the order passed today and will send you the same as and when the same is made available to us. 

Regards

Mihir   

           

--

D Balasundaram

Coimbatore