M/S Ecofren Power And Projects Private Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.

\~7^ OF 2015 PETITIONER M/s Ecofren Power & Projects Private Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory Mr.

Santeeswara Rao, son of Shri V.

\$ Venkata Rao, General Manager, ^- ^4'J M^ ^l*17 ..•r^"^1-^ having its registered office at Plot ^'"^y"^...•••"""

No.1071, Road No.44, Jubilee y^\$..• ^•'y-^"

Hills, Hyderabad-500033 and y^ '^ having its site office at Chandkhuri, Block & District Durg.

Civil & Revenue District Durg.

Vs Power RESPONDENT Distribution Company Ltd., a *N ^?

s^y ^^-^ ,.

.^ Government of undertaking and a successor ^-y i/y" y company of Electricity Board, through its Managing Director, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Floor, Daganiya, Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA

'^..

l/^ IJ^ \">7 ^v V0'

u UIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.:

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI P. SAM KOSHY,^, WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 174 OF 2015 PETITIONER M/s Ecofren Power & Projects Private Ltd.

Versus

RESPONDENT Power Distribution ^Company Ltd.

v AND WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 175 OF 2015 PETITIONER M/s ISA Power & Projects Private Ltd.

Versus

RES^POJ^DENT Power Distribution Gompany Ltd.

(WRIT PETITIONS UNDERARTIGLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) ApDearance:

Mr. V.V.S. Murty, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate '

forthe Petitioners.

Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate for the Respondent.

ORDER

(2nd ofFebruary, 2015) PER NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CJ.

1.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents in both petitions. The questions involved being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed by a common order. To facilitate better appreciation of the issues involved, we shall ^

notice the facts primarily from Writ Petition (C) No. 174 of 2015. 2.

The Petitioner is stated to have entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the Respondent. The validity of the same is to expire in the financial year 2014-15.

Pursuant to an order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Regulatory Commission, the Respondent by letter dated 24.10.2011 has proposed to extend the agreement for another 20 years endosing a draft agreement. The Petitioner is statedM Rave replied to^hesame and is aggrieved by the failure bf the Respondent to take a final decision regarding the same. 3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that all they desire is a direction to the Respondent to take a final decision. 4.

Learned Counsel forthe Respondent with reference to the reply of the Petitioner dated 23.6.2012 submitted that they have made a counter proposal.

5.

At this stage, we are not concerned with the merits of the decision •> that may be arrived at but only the need for a final decision to be taken by the Respondents in accordance with law.

6.

Both the writ applications are disposed with directions to the Respondent to take a final decision in accordance with law with regard to extension of the Power Purchase Agreement within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. If the Petitioner relies upon similar Power Purchase ^

Agreements granted in some other States and if the Respondent proposes to reject the same, we expect them to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

7.

Any other grievance regarding alleged arrears may be raised before the Respondent by filing an appropriate representation. 8.

The applications are disposed.

Sd/- P. SamKoshy Judge Sd/- Acting Chief Justice Anu