M/s. GMR Industries Limited,

6-3-866/1/G2, Greenlands,

Begumpet, Hyderabad. …… Petitioner

and

M/s Transmission Corporation of A. P. Limited,

Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ……… Respondent

O. P. No. 2 of 2005

Between

M/s. Kakatiya Cement Sugar & Industries Limited,

1-10-140/1, “Gurukrupa”’

Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-500 020. …… Petitioner

and

M/s Transmission Corporation of A. P. Limited,

Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ……… Respondent

O. P. No. 3 of 2005

Between

M/s. The Sough Indian Sugar Mills Association,

5-9-22/69, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad 500 063. …… Petitioner

and

M/s Transmission Corporation of A. P. Limited,

Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ……… Respondent

These petitions coming on for hearing on 02-04-2005 in the presence of Sri K. Narayana Rao, Managing Director, for the petitioner in O.P.No.1 of 2005; Sri A. Satyanarayana, Company Secretary, for the petitioner in O.P.No.2 of 2005; Sri K. Narayana Rao, Vice President, for the petitioner in O.P.No.3 of 2005 and Sri N. Jayasurya, Advocate, for the respondent in all the cases and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Commission delivered the following common:

O R D E R

These three petitions are about the mode of calculation of Plant Load Factor (PLF). The contention of the three petitioners is that the PLF has to be calculated on annual basis, even according to the order of the Commission dated 20.03.2004 in RP No.84 of 2003 in OP No.1075/2000 and subsequent order in RP No.8 of 2004. They have therefore questioned the computation of PLF by APTRANSCO on monthly basis.

While APTRANSCO in its counter took up a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition in view of the pendency of the writ petition No.12989/2004 filed by SISMA (Petitioners in OP No.3/2005), questioning the correctness of the order of the Commission dated 20.03.2004 referred to above, including the quantum of PLF fixed by the Commission and other aspects for arriving at the tariff fixed for sale of per unit of electrical energy (for brief, ‘the Tariff’) to the licensee.

The Commission heard arguments on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent APTRANSCO.

The respondent APTRANSCO contended that in the writ petition before the High Court, the correctness of ‘the Tariff’ including the quantum of PLF fixed by the Commission is pending decision. Therefore it is contended that these petitions before the Commission are not maintainable.

The learned representatives of the petitioners on the other hand stated that the relief sought by the petitioners in these petitions is altogether different from issues in the pending writ petition above referred.

The petitions though purporting to seek a clarification of the Commission’s earlier orders are in essence petitions seeking adjudication of a dispute with APTRANSCO.

When the writ petition No.12989/2004 is pending in the Hon’ble High Court for consideration of the validity and enforcement of the Order dated 20.03.2004 of the Commission involving all incidental aspects like percentage of PLF and fixation of fuel consumption, etc, taking up of adjudication proceedings by the Commission in respect of PLF would be tantamount to taking up a matter which is sub-judice. Therefore the objection raised by the APTRANSCO is tenable and hence further proceedings in the matter are stopped till the disposal of writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court.

The order is signed on this 26th day of April, 2005

Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
SURINDER PAL	K. SREERAMA MURTHY	K. SWAMINATHAN
Member	Member	Chairman

CERTIFIED COPY