Damodar Valley Corporation vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors
- Court
- Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
RP No. 35 OF 2025 & IA No. 177 of 2026 IN APL No. 268 OF 2016
RP No. 32 OF 2025 & IA No. 190 of 2026 IN APL No. 274 OF 2016
RP No. 33 OF 2025 & IA No. 213 of 2026 IN APL No. 135 OF 2017
RP No. 42 OF 2025 & IA No. 188 of 2026 IN APL No. 275 OF 2016
RP No. 43 OF 2025 & IA No. 179 of 2026 IN APL No. 272 OF 2016
RP No. 44 OF 2025 & IA No. 211 of 2026 IN APL No. 134 OF 2017
RP No. 45 OF 2025 & IA No. 186 of 2026 IN APL No. 8 OF 2017
RP No. 46 OF 2025 & IA No. 182 of 2026 IN APL No. 10 OF 2017
RP No. 47 OF 2025 & IA No. 193 of 2026 IN APL No. 299 OF 2016
RP No. 48 OF 2025 & IA No. 181 of 2026 IN APL No. 35 OF 2017
RP No. 49 OF 2025 & IA No. 187 of 2026 IN APL No. 7 OF 2017
RP No. 50 OF 2025 & IA No. 184 of 2026 IN APL No. 11 OF 2017
RP No. 51 OF 2025 & IA No. 209 of 2026 IN APL No. 183 OF 2017
RP No. 52 OF 2025 IN APL No. 4 OF 2017
RP No. 53 OF 2025 & IA No. 185 of 2026 IN APL No. 324 OF 2017
RP No. 34 OF 2025 IN APL No. 298 OF 2016
RP No. 36 OF 2025 & IA No. 191 of 2026 IN APL No. 270 OF 2016
RP No. 37 OF 2025 & IA No. 212 of 2026 IN APL No. 133 OF 2017
RP No. 38 OF 2025 & IA No. 192 of 2026 IN APL No. 237 OF 2016
RP No. 39 OF 2025 & IA No. 180 of 2026 IN APL No. 269 OF 2016
RP No. 40 OF 2025 IN APL No. 312 OF 2016
RP No. 41 OF 2025 & IA No. 189 of 2026 IN APL No. 271 OF 2016
RP No. 54 OF 2025 & IA No. 210 of 2026 IN APL No. 136 OF 2017
RP No. 55 OF 2025 & IA No. 183 of 2026 & IA No. 214 OF 2026 IN
APL No. 181 OF 2017
RP No. 56 OF 2025 & IA No. 178 of 2026 IN APL No. 326 OF 2016
Dated: 02.07.2026
Present: Hon`ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member
Hon`ble Mr. Ajay Talegaonkar, Technical Member
In the matter of:
RP No. 35 OF 2025 & IA No. 177 of 2026 IN APL No. 268 OF 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 1 of 39
RP No. 32 OF 2025 & IA No. 190 of 2026 IN APL No. 274 OF 2016
RP No. 42 OF 2025 & IA No. 188 of 2026 IN APL No. 275 OF 2016
RP No. 43 OF 2025 & IA No. 179 of 2026 IN APL No. 272 OF 2016
RP No. 45 OF 2025 & IA No. 186 of 2026 IN APL No. 8 OF 2017
RP No. 56 OF 2025 & IA No. 178 of 2026 IN APL No. 326 OF 2016
RP No. 48 OF 2025 & IA No. 181 of 2026 IN APL No. 35 OF 2017
RP No. 49 OF 2025 & IA No. 187 of 2026 IN APL No. 7 OF 2017
RP No. 50 OF 2025 & IA No. 184 of 2026 IN APL No. 11 OF 2017
RP No. 53 OF 2025 & IA No. 185 of 2026 IN APL No. 324 OF 2017
RP No. 36 OF 2025 & IA No. 191 of 2026 IN APL No. 270 OF 2017
RP No. 37 OF 2025 & IA No. 212 of 2026 IN APL No. 133 OF 2017
RP No. 38 OF 2025 & IA No. 192 of 2026 IN APL No. 237 OF 2016
RP No. 39 OF 2025 & IA No. 180 of 2026 IN APL No. 269 OF 2016
RP No. 41 OF 2025 & IA No. 189 of 2026 IN APL No. 271 OF 2016
RP No. 46 OF 2025 & IA No. 182 of 2026 IN APL No. 10 OF 2017
RP No. 47 OF 2025 & IA No. 193 of 2026 IN APL No. 299 OF 2016
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
DVC Headquarters, DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Through its Chairman and Managing Director
Vidyut Bhawan, Block ‘DJ’ Sector 11,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700091
Email: [email protected]
2. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi
(Now Jharkhand Bijlee Vitaran Nigam Ltd)
Through its Resident Engineer
Energy Building, HEC Dhurwa,
Ranchi- 834004
Email: [email protected]
3. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 2 of 39
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected]
4. Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (DVPCA)
Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Rajesh K Shah
A-69, Lower Ground Floor,
Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, 110 013
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Surbhi Kapoor
Manu Tiwari
Akash Lamba
Aniket Kanhaua
Indu Uttara
Tanishka Khatana
Suhael Buttan
Adarsh Singh
Abhishek Nangia
Aashwyn Singh
Ananya Dutta
Priya Dhankar
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Kunal Veer Chopra
Vedant Choudhary
Manav Bhatia
Drishti Rathi
Devishi Gupta
Divyansh Kasana
Punyam Bhutani
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Nihal Bhardwaj
Siddharth Nigotia
Mohit Mansharamani
Harsh Vardhan
Kanika Chug
Vineet Kumar
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Rajiv Yadav
for Res. 4
RP No. 33 OF 2025 & IA No. 213 of 2026 IN APL No. 135 OF 2017
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 3 of 39
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. Delhi Transco Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
nd
2 Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station,
I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan
New Delhi – 110002
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110019
Email: [email protected]
3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
Email: [email protected]
4. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)
Through its CEO
Grid Substation Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
5. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Chief Engineer
Inter-state Billing, Shed No. TI-A,
Patiala – 147001
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 4 of 39
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
6. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008
Email: [email protected]
7. Tata Steel Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
PGP Works, General Office (W-175),
Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand
Email: [email protected]
8. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Kanika Chugh
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Suhael Buttan
Priya Dhankar
Nihal Bhardwaj
Abhishek Nangia
Vineet Kumar
Surbhi Kapoor
Tanishka Khatana
Punyam Bhutani
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Kunal Veer Chopra
Vedant Choudhary
Manav Bhatia
Drishti Rathi
Adarsh Singh
Siddharth Nigotia
Manu Tiwari
Mohit Mansharamani
Akash Lamba
Aashwyn Singh
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 5 of 39
Harsh Vardhan
Aniket Kanhaua
Indu Uttara
Ananya Dutta
Devishi Gupta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain
Mayank Singh
V.M. Kannan
Harimohana. N
for Res. 1
Ravin Dubey
For Res. 6
RP No. 51 OF 2025 & IA No. 209 of 2026 IN APL No. 183 OF 2017
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110019
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
Email: [email protected]
3. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)
Through its CEO
Grid Substation Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 6 of 39
[email protected]
4. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
Through its Chief Engineer
Inter-state Billing, Shed No. TI-A,
Patiala – 147001
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
5. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008
Email: [email protected]
6. Tata Steel Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
PGP Works, General Office (W-175),
Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand
Email: [email protected]
7. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Priya Dhankar
Surbhi Kapoor
Kunal Veer Chopra
Adarsh Singh
Akash Lamba
Indu Uttara
Kanika Chugh
Nihal Bhardwaj
Tanishka Khatana
Vedant Choudhary
Siddharth Nigotia
Aashwyn Singh
Ananya Dutta
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 7 of 39
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Abhishek Nangia
Punyam Bhutani
Manav Bhatia
Manu Tiwari
Harsh Vardhan
Suhael Buttan
Vineet Kumar
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Drishti Rathi
Mohit Mansharamani
Aniket Kanhaua
Devishi Gupta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Aditya Vikram Jalan
Urvashi Mishra
Kshitij Pandey
Bhanu Jindal
for Res. 1
Aditya Vikram Jalan
Urvashi Mishra
Kshitij Pandey
Bhanu Jindal
for Res. 2
Ravin Dubey
for Res. 5
RP No. 52 OF 2025 IN APL No. 4 OF 2017
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. Delhi Transco Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road,
New Delhi – 110002
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 8 of 39
New Delhi – 110019
Email: [email protected]
3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
Email: [email protected]
4. North Delhi Power Ltd.
(Now Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.)
Through its CEO
33 kV Sub-Station Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
5. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6,
Panchkula - 134109
Email: [email protected]
6. Kerala State Electricity Board
Through its Chief Engineer
th
8 Floor, Vydyuthi Bhawan,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala – 695004
Email: [email protected]
7. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company
Through its Managing Director
K.R. Circle, Bangalore – 506001
Email: [email protected] , [email protected]
8. Hubli Electricity Supply Company
Through its Executive Engineer (Ele) (Regulatory Affairs)
Navanagar, P.B. Road, Navanagar,
Hubli – 580025
Email: [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 9 of 39
9. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Corporation
Through its Asst. Executive Engineer (Regulatory Affairs)
Station Road, Gulbarga,
Karnataka – 585102
Email: [email protected]
10. Mangalore Electricity Supply Company
Through its Superintending Engineer (Coml.)
Paradigm Plaza, AB Shetty Circle,
Mangalore – 575001
Email: [email protected] , [email protected]
11. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
927, LJ Avenue, GF, New Delhi Kantharaj Urs Road,
Saraswatipuram, Mysore – 570009
Email: [email protected] , [email protected]
12. Tata Steel Ltd.
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
PGP Works, General Office (W-175),
Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand
Email: [email protected]
13. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Suhael Buttan
Abhishek Nangia
Tanishka Khatana
Kunal Veer Chopra
Drishti Rathi
Manu Tiwari
Kanika Chugh
Priya Dhankar
Vineet Kumar
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 10 of 39
Punyam Bhutani
Vedant Choudhary
Adarsh Singh
Mohit Mansharamani
Aashwyn Singh
Aniket Kanhaua
Ananya Dutta
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Nihal Bhardwaj
Surbhi Kapoor
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Manav Bhatia
Siddharth Nigotia
Akash Lamba
Harsh Vardhan
Indu Uttara
Devishi Gupta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain
Mayank Singh
V.M. Kannan
Harimohana. N
for Res. 1
RP No. 34 OF 2025 IN APL No. 298 OF 2016
RP No. 40 OF 2025 IN APL No. 312 OF 2016
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. Delhi Transco Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
nd
2 Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station,
I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan
New Delhi – 110002
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110019
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 11 of 39
Email: [email protected]
3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
Email: [email protected]
4. North Delhi Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
33 kV Sub-Station Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
5. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6,
Panchkula - 134109
Email: [email protected]
6. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Aashwyn Singh
Harsh Vardhan
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Kanika Chugh
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Suhael Buttan
Priya Dhankar
Nihal Bhardwaj
Abhishek Nangia
Vineet Kumar
Surbhi Kapoor
Tanishka Khatana
Punyam Bhutani
Nikunj Bhatnagar
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 12 of 39
Kunal Veer Chopra
Vedant Choudhary
Manav Bhatia
Drishti Rathi
Adarsh Singh
Siddharth Nigotia
Manu Tiwari
Mohit Mansharamani
Akash Lamba
Aniket Kanhaua
Indu Uttara
Ananya Dutta
Devishi Gupta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain
Mayank Singh
V.M. Kannan
Harimohana. N
for Res. 1
RP No. 54 OF 2025 & IA No. 210 of 2026 IN APL No. 136 OF 2017
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. Delhi Transco Limited
Through its General Manager (Commercial)
nd
2 Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station,
I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan
New Delhi – 110002
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110019
Email: [email protected]
3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 13 of 39
nd
2 Floor, A-Block, Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
Email: [email protected]
4. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)
Through its CEO
Grid Substation Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
5. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008
Email: [email protected]
6. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Kanika Chugh
Suhael Buttan
Nihal Bhardwaj
Vineet Kumar
Tanishka Khatana
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Vedant Choudhary
Drishti Rathi
Siddharth Nigotia
Mohit Mansharamani
Aashwyn Singh
Aniket Kanhaua
Ananya Dutta
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Priya Dhankar
Abhishek Nangia
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 14 of 39
Surbhi Kapoor
Punyam Bhutani
Kunal Veer Chopra
Manav Bhatia
Adarsh Singh
Manu Tiwari
Akash Lamba
Harsh Vardhan
Indu Uttara
Devishi Gupta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain
Mayank Singh
V.M. Kannan
Harimohana. N
for Res. 1
Mansoor Ali Shoket
Nitin Kala
Kunal Singh
Tanmay Jain
For Res. 4
Ravin Dubey
For Res. 5
RP No. 55 OF 2025 & IA No. 183 of 2026 & IA No. 214 OF 2026 IN
APL No. 181 OF 2017
Damodar Valley Corporation
Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical
Having its office at DVC Towers,
VIP Road, Kolkata-700054
Email: [email protected] …Review Petitioner
Versus
1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110019
Email: [email protected]
2. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Through its CEO
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 15 of 39
Email: [email protected]
3. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)
Through its CEO
Grid Substation Building,
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi – 110009
Email: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
4. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Through its Chairman and Managing Director
Vidyut Bhawan, Block ‘DJ’ Sector 11,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700091
Email: [email protected]
5. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi
(Now Jharkhand Bijlee Vitaran Nigam Ltd)
Through its Managing Director
Energy Building, HEC Dhurwa,
Ranchi – 834004
Email: [email protected]
6. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008
Email: [email protected]
7. Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (DVPCA)
Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Rajesh K Shah
th
Regd. Office: Ideal Centre, 4 Floor,
9 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017
Email: [email protected]
8. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Through its Secretary
th th th
6 , 7 & 8 Floors, Tower B,
World Trade Centre,
Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029
Email: [email protected] …Respondents
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 16 of 39
Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s) : Shri Venkatesh
Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Priya Dhankar
Abhishek Nangia
Surbhi Kapoor
Punyam Bhutani
Kunal Veer Chopra
Manav Bhatia
Adarsh Singh
Manu Tiwari
Akash Lamba
Harsh Vardhan
Indu Uttara
Devishi Gupta
Kanika Chugh
Suhael Buttan
Nihal Bhardwaj
Vineet Kumar
Tanishka Khatana
Nikunj Bhatnagar
Vedant Choudhary
Drishti Rathi
Siddharth Nigotia
Mohit Mansharamani
Aashwyn Singh
Aniket Kanhaua
Ananya Dutta
Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Aditya Vikram Jalan
Urvashi Mishra
Kshitij Pandey
Bhanu Jindal
for Res. 1
Aditya Vikram Jalan
Urvashi Mishra
Kshitij Pandey
Bhanu Jindal
for Res. 2
Mansoor Ali Shoket
Nitin Kala
Kunal Singh
Tanmay Jain
For Res. 3
Ravin Dubey
for Res. 6
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 17 of 39
Rajiv Yadav
For Res. 7
O R D E R
PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. By way of these review petitions, the petitioner Damodar Valley
Corporation (in short DVC) has sought review of common judgment dated
11.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in appeal no.268/2016 and batch which
rd
had arisen from various Tariff Orders passed by the 3 respondent Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission in the years 2016-2017. Since all the
review petitions are directed against the said common judgment dated
11.09.2025 and raise identical grounds for review, these are being taken up
for disposal vide this common order.
2. The review petitions are directed against the finding on issue (a) in the
said judgment dated 11.09.2025 which is extracted hereinbelow: -
Issue - a): Whether the Central Commission is correct in holding that
the O&M expenses adequately cover the contribution to the Pension
and Gratuity Fund as factored into the normative O&M expenses.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 18 of 39
3. This Tribunal has affirmed the findings of the Central Commission on
this issue and rejected the claim of the petitioner that Pension and Gratuity
Fund (in short P&G Fund) liability is a distinct tariff element, not subsuming
within the normative O&M expenses and recoverable separately from the
consumers in tariff.
4. According to the petitioners, the findings of this Tribunal on the said
issue are ex facie erroneous and proceed on a fundamental misappreciation
of both the statutory framework governing DVC as well as the applicable tariff
regulations.
5. We have heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for review
petitioners at length. We have also heard Mr. Rajiv Yadav, learned counsel
on behalf of Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (in short
DVPCA), Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, learned senior counsel on behalf of
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, and Mr. Ravin Dubey, learned counsel for
Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Ltd, who have been arrayed
as respondents in the review petitions. We have also perused the written
submissions filed by the learned counsels.
6. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the review
petitioners, this Tribunal, in the judgment dated 11.09.2025 has: -
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 19 of 39
(i) erred in equating pension liability of DVC with Contributory
Provident Fund (CPF) despite established legal distinction;
(ii) erred in treating P&G Fund contribution as part of the normative
O&M expenses; and
(iii) returned findings on this issue contrary to the previous judgment
of this Tribunal dated 23.11.2007 in appeal no.271/2006 and
batch as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar
Shrachi Alloys Ltd and Ors. v. DVC and Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 281.
7. It is submitted that there is a fundamental distinction between pension
liabilities and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in as much as under CPF
both employer and employee contribute a specified amount and the
employer’s liability ceases upon retirement with the employee receiving an
accumulated sum, whereas pension scheme imposes a continued liability on
the employer post-retirement of employee extending even after the
employee’s demise in the form of family pension to his legal representatives.
It is submitted that the pension liability of the petitioner substantially pertains
to the employees who were recruited prior to 01.01.2004 and accordingly
DVC carries a legacy pension obligations in respect of such employees
which is not comparable to the framework applicable to such other entities.
It is further submitted that employee related expenses contemplated within
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 20 of 39
normative Operation and Maintenance expenditure (O&M) are limited to
meeting current and contribution based liabilities such as Gratuity, CPF and
NPS which are discharged through periodic outflows in contrast to the
pension liability which is specifically serviced through dedicated P&G Fund,
and therefore, in view of this fundamental distinction, P&G liability cannot be
equated with or subsumed within the contribution based framework like
CPF/NPS.
8. It is further argued that Section 40 of DVC Act, 1948 expressly
mandates DVC to make provision for funds on terms as may be specified by
Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) in consultation with the Central
Government and accordingly, P&G Fund was established in terms of the
direction of C&AG which cannot be equated with incidental annual outgoings
such as CPF, Gratuity or medical allowances. In this regard, reference is
made to order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Commission in petition
no.66/2005 to argue that creation of P&G Fund on the basis of actuarial value
was formally approved by the Commission in the said order.
9. It is further argued that in the said order dated 03.10.2006, while
approving the proposal for creation of the P&G fund, the Commission did not
permit the interim liability to be passed on to the consumers and instead,
directed that liability be shared between the DVC and consumers in the ratio
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 21 of 39
of 40:60 with only 60% of the liability being recoverable from the consumers
in three equal annual installments commencing from FY 2006-2007. It is
pointed out that in the appeal, challenging the said partial allowance of P&G
liability, preferred by DVC this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 23.11.2007,
held that the direction to apportion the liability in the ratio of 40:60 between
DVC and the consumers was not supported by any justification. Accordingly,
this Tribunal held that the claim of DVC for recovery of entire cost of creation
of P&G Fund through tariff was justified and remanded the matter back to
the Commission for de-novo consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd and Ors. v. DVC and Ors. (2018) 8 SCC
281 affirmed the judgment dated 23.11.2007 of this Tribunal. It is argued
that while determining tariff for subsequent control periods i.e. FYs 2009-
2014 and FY 2014-2019, the Commission was required to continue giving
effect to the aforesaid framework by allowing P&G Fund as a separate tariff
element with a corresponding adjustment in normative O&M. But this
Tribunal has proceeded on an erroneous premise in holding that DVC is, in
effect, challenging the validity of the Tariff Regulations, which is not the case
at all.
10. It is further argued that the findings of this Tribunal in Paragraph no.186
of the judgment under review to the effect that P&G fund of DVC is
comparable to similar funds maintained by other public sector utilities such
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 22 of 39
as NTPC and that contributions to such funds based on actuarial valuation
are not allowed to NTPC as an additional tariff element over and above
normative O&M, is based on factually and legal incorrect premise for the
reason that no other public sector utility including NTPC is governed by a
pari materia statutory mandate (like Section 40 read with Section 48 of the
DVC Act) requiring the creation of a dedicated actuarially funded corpus for
funding pension liabilities.
11. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have
been strongly refuted by the learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents. It is argued that the review petitions do not
disclose any error on the face of record to justify review of the judgment
dated 11.09.2025 of this Tribunal. They urged us to dismiss the review
petitions.
Our Analysis:
12. At the outset, we may note that Section 114 of CPC is the substantive
provision dealing with scope of review and is quoted below:
“114. Review. —Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 23 of 39
allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has
been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment
to the Court which passed the decree or made the
order, and the Court may make such order thereon
as it thinks fit.”
13. The grounds on which review of a judgment / order can be sought,
have been specified in Order XLVII of the CPC which are reproduced
hereinbelow: -
“1. Application for review of judgment. — (1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 24 of 39
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes, and who, from the discovery
of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made,
or on account of some mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record or for any other sufficient
reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply
for a review of judgment to the Court which passed
the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or
order may apply for a review of judgment
notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by
some other party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and the
appellant, or when, being respondent, he can
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 25 of 39
present to the Appellate Court the case on which he
applied for the review.
Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a
question of law on which the judgment of the Court
is based has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other
case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. A bare reading of these relevant legal provisions would make it clear
that an application for review of a judgment / order is maintainable upon (i)
discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of
due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review applicant or could
not be produced by him when the judgment / order was passed; or (ii) on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or (iii) for
any other sufficient reason.
15. The expression “error apparent on the face of record” used in Order
XLVII Rule 1 indicates an error which is self-evident and staring in the eye.
Any error or mistake which is not self-evident and has to be deducted from
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 26 of 39
a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of
record justifying exercise of power of review. Power of review can be
exercised only where a glaring omission or a patent mistake is found in the
order under review. We may also note that the power of review can be
exercised only for correction of a patent mistake but not to substitute a view
for the reason that a review petition cannot be permitted to be an appeal in
disguise.
16. In Chhajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112, it was held that the
words “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule”. This interpretation was approved by the Supreme Court
in later judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasium 1955 1 SCR 520. In Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 320, Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly
summarized the principles for exercising review jurisdiction as under: -
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following
grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by
the stature:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 27 of 39
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v.
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
those specified in the rule”. The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument
is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated
with the original hearing of the case.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 28 of 39
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage
of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out
and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter
had been negatived.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 29 of 39
17. We also find advantageous to quote here following Paragraphs of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V.
Narayana Reddy & Ors . (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1034:-
“31. As can be seen from the above exposition of
law, it has been consistently held by this Court in
several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s
jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an
appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record, but an error that has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the
Court to exercise its powers of review under
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of
exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a
mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier
merely because there is a possibility of taking two
views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to
review when any new or important matter of
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 30 of 39
evidence has emerged after passing of
thejudgment, subject to the condition that such
evidence was not within the knowledge of the party
seeking review or could not be produced by it when
the order was made despite undertaking an
exercise of due diligence. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous decision as
against an error apparent on the face of the record.
An erroneous decision can be corrected by the
Superior Court, however an error apparent on the
face of the record can only be corrected by
exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another
circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1
for reviewing a judgment has been described as
“for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase
has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on
grounds, at least analogous to those specified in
the rule” (Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius).”
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 31 of 39
18. In a recent judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed in Malleeswari v. K.
Suguna and Anr. SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1080) Hon'ble
Supreme Court has again reiterated that court’s power to review its own
previous order is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of
the record and not to rehear or substitute a different view as if it were an
appeal. It has been held in the said judgment that the power of review is
different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to
maintain the finality of the judicial decisions:
“15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which
may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 32 of 39
reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction
of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers
can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute
governing the exercise of power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order.
A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes
an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is
signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it
is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors.”
19. Further, after noticing the distinction between power of review and
appellate power, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly summed up the
grounds of review as under: -
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 33 of 39
“17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or
evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that,
despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was
not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the
party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may
be invoked if there is something more than a mere error,
and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the
record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere
wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a
long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there
may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be
an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means
a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous
to those specified in the other two categories.”
20. We may also note that in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer (as his
Lordship then was), “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 34 of 39
manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be
avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flows
and reversal of result. A review in the counsel’s mentation cannot repair the
verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” (See
Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co.
Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657).
21. Bearing in mind these salutary legal principles governing the power of
a court to review its own decision, let’s now turn to the judgment under review
and the grounds of review raised in these petitions.
22. To state pithily, the issue before this Tribunal was whether the
normative O&M covers the P&G liability of the employees of DVC.
23. The discussion on this issue spans over 12 pages of the judgment from
Paragraph no.156 to Paragraph no.186. We do not find it necessary to
burden this order by reproducing the entire discussion herein. However,
perusal of the said portion of the judgment would definitely reveal that all the
arguments of the petitioners that have been raised in these review petitions
have been taken note of and discussed in these Paragraphs of the judgment
under review.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 35 of 39
24. After extracting Paragraph no.20.3 of the Statement of reasons (SOR)
of 2009 Tariff Regulations applicable for the control period 2009-2014, this
Tribunal has held in Paragraph no.162 of the judgment under review that the
O&M charges include every expenditure incurred on the employees
including Gratuity, CPF, medical, education allowance etc. This Tribunal
was conscious about the distinction between pension liabilities and CPF and
the same has been discussed in Paragraph no.166 of the judgment. Taking
note of the arguments on behalf of the petitioners with regards to applicability
of previous judgment dated 23.11.2007 in appeal no.271/2006 and batch, it
was held in Paragraph no.168 that the period 2006-2009, to which the said
judgment pertains, is the past period when no such provision as contained
in Paragraph no.20.3 of SOR of 2009 Tariff Regulations, had been made and
therefore, additional allowance was granted to DVC in that judgment.
Further we have, in Paragraph no.169 taken note of the submission of DVC
itself that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Shrachi judgment (supra)
held that the Central Commission, while framing regulations under the
plenary the Electricity Act, 2003, must take care of such provisions of the
DVC Act not inconsistent with the Act and accordingly directed to frame
regulations to accommodate Section 40 of the DVC Act. Ultimately, this
Tribunal came to conclusion that grant of P&G Fund expenditure in addition
to O&M expenses, which already include Gratuity, CPF, medical and
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 36 of 39
education allowances etc., will result in double payment as the employees
are entitled to either P&G or Gratuity and CPF.
25. Taking note of Regulation 3(28) of 2009 Tariff Regulations, this
Tribunal has held in Paragraph no.178 of the judgment that “O&M expenses”
are meant to cover all expenditure that are incurred on the Operation and
Maintenance of the generating station and therefore, all such expenditure
relating to the manpower of a generating company has to be met from O&M
expenses that are allowable at normative level prescribed under these
regulations.
26. In Paragraph no.179, this Tribunal has held that a harmonious reading
of the statement of reasons as well as Tariff Regulations, 2009 along with
the impugned Tariff Order supports the view taken by the Commission that
contribution made by DVC to P&G Fund is indisputably a manpower related
expenditure which is already allowed to DVC as normative O&M expenses
in terms of these regulations. It has further been held that such a normative
tariff regime would be defeated if a generating company is allowed any O&M
related expenditure by way of additional allowance over and above O&M
norms that are allowed to it in accordance with the tariff regulations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 37 of 39
27. It has been stated that the purpose of norms based tariff scheme is to
incentivize efficiency so that a generating company incurs expenditure
prudently within the prescribed norms.
28. With reference to the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on
Regulation 53 read with Section 40 of the DVC Act, it has been observed in
Paragraph no.185 of the judgment that the DVC neither argued nor
established before the Central Commission that P&G Fund had been created
pursuant to the direction/approval of C&AG under Section 40 of the DVC Act.
Even no document in this regard was submitted on behalf of the petitioners
during the course of hearing of these review petitions. It has further been
stated in the said Paragraph that Regulation 53(2)(iv) does not lay down that
an expenditure which is adequately provided for under the O&M norms, has
to be once again allowed as a tariff element.
29. In nutshell, we may note that upon consideration of all the relevant
statutory provisions as well as regulations, this Tribunal has, in the judgment
under review, come to a particular finding on the issue under consideration
which cannot be altered in the review proceedings. A well-reasoned and well
considered judgment, even though erroneous, does not fall within the scope
and ambit of review. There is a clear distinction between a judgment
suffering from error apparent on the face of record and an erroneous
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 38 of 39
judgment. Review petition is maintainable only in the former case whereas
in the latter case, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to assail the
order/judgment by way of appeal in the higher forum/court.
30. By way of the instant review petitions, the petitioners are actually
seeking a relook of the judgment under review in the hope to discover any
flaw or fault in the same, which is not permissible in law. The review petitions
manifestly appear to be appeals in disguise and thus, do not fall within the
scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
31. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed
to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the
judgment under review dated 11.09.2025 and have failed to bring the case
within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
decisions referred to hereinabove. The review petitions are sans any merit
and are accordingly dismissed.
nd
Pronounced in the open court on this the 02 day of July, 2026.
(Ajay Talegaonkar)
Technical Member (Electricity)
(Virender Bhat)
Judicial Member
√
REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE
tp
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP No.35 of 2025 & batch Page 39 of 39