OERC - Case No.'s 9 & 13 of 1998

Present:
Shri S.C. Mahalik, Chairman
Shri A.R. Mohanty, Member
Shri D . K . Roy, Member

M/s Indian Charge Chrome Limited,
Bomikhal, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar … Petitioner

Vrs.

Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar ... Affected Party

A petition was filed on 30.06.98 by M/s Indian Charge Chrome Limited (ICCL), Bhubaneswar. It was prayed in the petition that bill for Rs.90,98,43,647.00 dt.04.06.98 from M/s Gridco which included the claim for the month of May'98 should be treated as a part of arbitration claim filed on 09.05.98 and pending arbitration of issues, realisation of the bill amount should be stayed and the respondent Gridco be restrained from taking any coercive action under the disputed bill. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,07,132.00 to the petitioner. This petition was admitted as Case No.9 of 1998 and notices were issued accordingly. Reply and rejoinder have been filed and the case has been heard.

2. In course of hearing, the Commission also took note of the similar petition filed for the month of June'98 which had been admitted as Case No.13 of 1998. In the said petition ICCL has denied the liability for payment of the entire amount of Rs.89,28,38,589 which covers current demand for june'98 amounting to Rs.1,79,07,059.91 and arrear demand and delayed payment surcharge etc. M/s ICCL have prayed that the payment of the bills should be stayed and the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive action with regard to the disputed bill. M/s ICCL have also prayed for treating the bill for June'98 as a part of the arbitration claim filed on 09.05.98. The respondent M/s Gridco have objected to expanding the scope of arbitration and has made preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that any bill for period beyond March '98 must be paid in full if M/s ICCL wants to use power in view of observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. The Commission decided to take up both the cases together and to dispose of by a consolidated order as these two cases calling for interim order on the bills for May and June'98 are exactly similar with the case No.7/98 disposed by the Commission vice its order dt.3.7.98. We consider it appropriate to avoid repetition of the facts and invite reference to our order dt.30.07.98 in Case No.7/98. We also deem it just to adopt the ratio of the said judgment to pass this order with regard to the bill for May and June'98.

4. The Commission has already decided on the time span of the pending arbitration proceeding which shall be limited to the period considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely for the period upto March'98. The subsequent period shall not be treated as part of the arbitration claim pending before OERC. However, to ratio of final decision in the arbitration case will be made applicable in the final order to be passed by the Commission for May and June'98.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not analyse the facts in this order and straightway proceed to give our findings entirely on the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dt.13.05.98 so as to arrive at the amount to be paid by ICCL as an interim measure against the bills for May and June '98.

6. For the purpose of this interim order for determining the payment to be made as an interim measure we had called upon ICCL and Gridco to file their calculation on the basis of their interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While calculations have been filed by M/s ICCL no calculation has been submitted before us by Gridco. We do not think it necessary to further scrutinise the arithmetical precision of the amounts as the interim payments will be finally adjusted and will not affect the rights of the parties. We proceed to determine the amount payable by M/s ICCL as an interim measure under the following basis adopted on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision for interim payment:

A	Export by ICCL at Choudwar	1,46,52,000 kwh
B	Transmission Loss at 7.5%	10,98,900 kwh
C	Net power received at IMFA,Therubali (A-B)	1,35,53,100 kwh
D	Actual Consumption at IMFA, Therubali as per meter reading	1,16,53,200 kwh
E	Net surplus energy from ICCL to GRIDCO (Sale (C-D))	18,99,900 kwh

1	Transmission tariff on (A) above 1,46,52,000 kwh x 40 p or 0.40 re.	Rs. 58,60,800.00
2	Value of import at ICCL ,Choudwar 27360 kwh x 2.31 re. = Rs. 63201.60	Rs. 63,202.00
3	Meter Rent	Rs. 17,400.00
	Total	Rs. 59,41,402.00
4	Less sale to GRIDCO [vide (E) above] 18,99,900 x 77 P. or 0.77 Re.	Rs. 14,62,923.00
5	Net amount payable by ICCL to GRIDCO	Rs. 44,78,479.00

A	Export by ICCL at Choudwar	84,10,000 Kwh
B	Transmission Loss at 7.5%	6,30,750 Kwh
C	Net power received at IMFA, Therubali (A-B)	77,79,250 Kwh
D	Actual Consumption at IMFA, Therubali as per meter reading	1,13,91,360 kwh
E	Net supply from GRIDCO at IMFA (D-C)	36,12,110 Kwh

1	Transmission charges on (A) above 84,10,000 kwh x 2.31 Re.	Rs. 33,64,000.00
2	Import at ICCL ,Choudwar 78,925 kwh x 2.31 Re. = Rs. 1,82,316.75 or	Rs. 1,82,317.00
3	Meter Rent	Rs. 17,400.00
4	Value of Net supply from GRIDCO 36,12,100 kwh x 2.31	Rs. 83,43,974.00
5	Total amount to be paid by ICCL to GRIDCO	Rs. 1,19,07,691.00

7. M/s ICCL has prayed that even if the Commission directs for payment of any amount as an interim payment, the Hon'ble Commission should grant in inatalment and also grant Sufficient time for payment. We are unable to find any justification or force in the claim of ICCL that instalment should be granted and that such instalment payment should commence only after the instalment liability in pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment is extinguished. Grant of instalment facility for arrears and for current charges obviously stand on different footing. We are guided by Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment that with regard to recurring charges, payment would have to be made by ICCL if they intend to avail of supply of power by GRIDCO. This payment liability is entirely independent of liability for arrears. The liability for May and June have arisen quite sometime back. The regulatory process itself has resulted in automatic grant of considerable time to M/s ICCL. Further deferment would have snowballing effect for all subsequent bills and this would not be in keeping with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding payment of recurring charges. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it reasonable to order for payment of Rs.44,78,479.00 and Rs.1,19,07,691.00 respectively for May'98 and June'98 within 2 weeks of passing of this order. The final amount in respect of the bill and liability of interest and delayed payment surcharge, if any, would be decided on the basis of the ratio of the decision in the arbitration case pending before us.