It's the contention of the petitioner MSEDCL that CERC had exercised the power of removal of difficulty with regard to CERC Transmission Charges Regulations when there existed no difficulty in giving effect to the said Regulations.
By passing the impugned order in exercise of its power of ‘removal of difficulty' CERC has not only substantially amended the regulations, but has also kept it in abeyance for more than a year, alleged the petitioner.
MSEDCL has also contended in its petition, filed by the law firm DSK Legal, that the difficulty alleged by one of the respondents - National Load Dispatch Centre (NLDC), due to lack of cooperation from the customers was just a mere physical or an extraneous difficulty and not one requiring an order of "removal of difficulty".
It's also contended by the petitioner that clauses sought to be amended and modified in the exercise of the power of ‘removal of difficulty' are in no way related to or connected with the alleged difficulties which are stated to be the basis of the exercise of the ‘removal of difficulty' power.
It was also alleged by the petitioner that the impugned order seeks to reward the non-complying entities for their wilful refusal to carry out their obligations in the manner provided for by the CERC Transmission Charges Regulations.
Senior advocate Paras Kuhad representing MSEDCL argued before the court that "the primary object of the CERC Transmission Charges Regulations was to make the sharing of Central Transmission Utility (CTU) transmission charges sensitive to distance, direction and quantum of electricity as envisaged in the National Electricity Policy (NEP)".
"This methodology of sharing CTU charges was termed Hybrid Methodology and it permits the sharing of transmission charges on the basis of distance, usage and directions of power flow, which is different from the erstwhile Postage Stamp Method where the cost of a transmission system was to be shared between the users on an average basis irrespective of usage, distance, direction, quantum, etc.", Kuhad added.
He also argued that vide the impugned order, the Hybrid Method for computation of sharing of transmission charges has been dispensed with and the Postage Stamp Method is being brought back in through the back door. He further argued that the directions passed by the CERC have resulted in an additional monthly burden of Rs.12crore being imposed upon the petitioner.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, while declining to stay the impugned order as was sought by the petitioner, has sought CERC's response in the matter. Justice Endlaw also held that the extra payment incurred by the petitioner would be subject to the outcome of the case.
Source- Lat at el. News