Allegations of mis-declaration cannot be made based on isolated instances and sketchy evidence

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited v. Pragati Power Corporation Limited and Ors.,

CERC Judgement dated 29.11.2023 in Petition No. 199/MP/2019

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Central Commission”) in its Order dated 29.11.2023 in Petition No. 199/MP/2019 titled as “Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited v. Pragati Power Corporation Limited and Ors.”, while deciding upon the allegations of misdeclaration of declared capacity (“DC”) as placed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (“TPDDL”) upon Pragati Power Corporation Limited (“PPCL”), inter-alia, held that PPCL had not mis-declared the DC.

The Petition was filed by TPDDL under Sections 79 (1) (c) and 79 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking, inter-alia, a direction by the Central Commission to hold PPCL liable for mis-declaration of DC in view of the testing reports and various other instances. Certain dates were picked up by TPDDL in October 2017 and on few more dates in 2018 and till March 2019 to raise the contention of mis-declaration.

The Central Commission while passing the order dated 29.11.2023 held as follows:

1.        The data as provided by PPCL regarding the percentage of actual generation in relation to the schedule generation shows that the generation of power by PPCL nearly matches the schedule as given by SLDC.

2.        During the meeting dated 13.03.2019 as organized by SLDC to ascertain the reasons of frequent tripping of Pragati III, it was decided to change the working of Pragati III (from running on one full module on MTL of Pragati III, to running on both the modules at MTL on half module mode). In view thereof, it is held that since TPDDL was a party to the decision making of the meeting dated 13.03.2019, as organised by SLDC, it cannot subsequently claim mis-declaration.

3.        PPCL possessed the necessary fuel supply and technical capability on the days of alleged misdeclaration and, none of the machines were under planned or forced shutdown at the time of declaration of availability, thereby fulfilling the eligibility conditions for declaring availability.

4.        Further, upon relying on the information as submitted by PPCL and further confirmed by SLDC (being the statutory body responsible for adjudicating misdeclarations and consequent penalties), it is held that there has been no misdeclaration by PPCL.

The Central Commission has found in favour of PPCL while holding that it possessed the necessary fuel supply and technical capability and therefore, there cannot be a mis-declaration at all. This is a big victory for PPCL and also establishes that contentions/allegations of mis-declaration cannot be made on the basis of isolated instances and sketchy evidence.

PPCL was represented by MSA Partners and a copy of the Order can be accessed here.