Gujrat, August 1: In a decision that was intriguing both for the issues it addressed as well as the long history of litigation it ideally shuts, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has excused a survey request for a situation recorded by various Gujarat discoms against Renew Power, GERC (Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission) and the Wind Independent Power producers association among others.
The request by 5 of the Gujarat discoms was mostly around the issue of GERC’s power and competency to relook a PPA signed between the discoms and Renew Power and others, and to survey GERC’s request for 2015 on this issue, other than APTEL’s own request in 2018.
The dispute had already travelled from the state regulator to the central regulator, APTEL, and even the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the matter with an option to refer it back to APTEL for rectification in 2019. During this time, the discoms had conveniently paid Renew as per the claimed terms from their end, besides charging ESS on its customers.
APTEL has finally dismissed the appeal (again), with no other recourse now, hoping this saga of litigation is finally ended.
Be that as it may, it is fascinating to see how this case serves to show exactly what number of pitfalls await, or can be made by discoms on the off chance that they take it on themselves to do as such. The total absence of responsibility for seeking after debates that have a powerless establishment, or none at all, as in this specific appeal, needs to be looked at by both state, and central governments.
The uncovered examination of the Review Petition, it is noteworthy to take note of that the whole grounds, pleadings, contentions and so forth were made by the Review Petitioner/Appellant in the principle Appeal likewise to challenge on similar supplications/issues which were properly thought of, investigated, assessed and mediated by this Tribunal in detail in the wake of hearing all the gatherings at an extensive period of time. From the substance of the survey request, just as the composed entries of the Review Petitioner consequently, it is completely clear that neither extra nor new ground has been made by the Review Petitioner now which in any case validate its pleadings for evaluating the judgment dated 06.12.2018 and passing any changed judgment in that.
We have gone through all the materials put before us identifying with the original Appeal just as the material contained in review Petition and furthermore fundamentally broke down our discoveries in the judgment impugned. What along these lines comes to pass is that without building up any of the compulsory measures for survey of the denounced judgment of this Tribunal, the Appellant under the pretense of the current review petition is trying to re-open the whole case for accomplishing an alleged goal of ideal choice which is impermissible under the review jurisdiction as held by the Apex Court in various cases.
Considering the above mentioned, what develops decisively is that the case in the survey appeal neither identifies with any disclosure of new and significant issue or proof which after the activity of due diligence was not within the knowledge on the review petitioner or could not be delivered by him when the judgment was articulated nor any slip-up or blunder clear on the essence of the judgment has explicitly been called attention to and nor some other adequate explanation or ground has been made out . It is likewise huge to take note of that a judgment must be found completely and ought not be ambushed dependent on specific sections, only on pick and choose methodology. Rather, it must be read in close conjunction of past orders of the State Commission which stand affirmed by the said judgment as in the current case.
Certainly, it would be important to monitor how the two parties resolve the issue now, particularly the question of pending dues that Renew Power that now say. One can only hope that arriving at a number does not entail any further court visits.
