Tribunal rejects Adani Power appeal on condoning delay
The Electricity Appellate Tribunal has rejected Adani Power's application seeking to condone the '481 days' delay in filing a plea against the April 2013 ruling by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) with regard to tariff issues at Mundra project.
The application was filed requesting the tribunal to condone the 'delay of 481 days' in filing the appeal that challenges certain findings of an order passed by electricity watchdog CERC on 2 April, 2013.
'We hold that the explanation offered by the applicant for inordinate delay of 481 days not only suffers from lack of bona fide but also suffers from the lack of diligence and lack of sufficient cause,' the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity said in its order. CERC had ruled in April 2013 that Adani Power should be granted 'compensation' package for its Mundra project which would provide a cushion against the escalation in cost of imported coal for the plant.
The company had approached the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) last year, seeking revision in tariff from its 1,980-MW Mundra project in Gujarat saying increase in imported fuel cost. However, CERC rejected Adani Power's submission to consider tariff issues arising out of change in Indonesian coal pricing rules should be considered as 'force majure or change in law'. The tribunal's latest order, dated 31 October, observed that even though Adani Power was aggrieved by certain portions of last year's CERC order it did not choose to exercise its right to file the appeal at that stage itself.
'This would clearly prove that the applicant duly accepted the impunged order and proceeded with this implementation without taking any steps to challenge the said order at the relevant time,' the tribunal noted.
Other respondents to the appeal are Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. The first two are Haryana's power distribution companies while the third one is of Gujarat. The respondents raised serious objections for the condoning of delay, 'mainly on the ground that the explanation offered by the applicant for this inordinate delay was not satisfactory and not bona fide', according to the tribunal's order.