LTA transmission charges are payable on the entire sanctioned capacity regardless of actual usage or power flow.

The Appellant (PTC), an inter-state trading licensee, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Respondent No. 2 (KPL) in 2005 for 300 MW of power, subsequently secured through a Power Sale Agreement (PSA) with Haryana Power (HPPC)

PTC obtained Long-Term Open Access (LTA) for 300 MW from the Central Transmission Utility (CTUIL)

In 2011, KPL terminated the PPA, leading to prolonged litigation currently pending before the Supreme Court (SC)

On 18.09.2015, the SC passed an interim order for the resumption of power supply, during which KPL voluntarily opened a Letter of Credit (LC) for the full 300 MW LTA charges on behalf of PTC to restart the plant

While 95% of the power was supplied to HPPC via LTA, 5% was supplied to Chhattisgarh (CSPDCL) via Short-Term Open Access (STOA)

CTUIL invoiced PTC for 100% LTA charges; however, PTC deducted the 5% corresponding to the STOA supply from KPL’s energy bills

KPL petitioned the CERC (Petition No. 227/MP/2017), which directed PTC to pay 100% of the LTA charges to CTUIL and refund the 5% deducted from KPL

PTC appealed, challenging CERC’s jurisdiction and the relief granted without a specific prayer

1. Whether Petition No. 227/MP/2017 was maintainable before the CERC given that the primary dispute between the parties was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. Whether the CERC correctly determined the liability for 100% LTA transmission charges and correctly directed PTC to refund the 5% deducted from KPL’s payments.

The Tribunal applied Section 79(1)(c) and (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers the CERC to regulate inter-state transmission and adjudicate related disputes

It relied on Regulation 8 of the CERC (Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges and Losses) Regulations, 2010, which mandates that LTA charges are based on the quantum of LTA granted rather than actual power flow

The Tribunal further applied the principle of "moulding of relief" as established in Srinivas Ram Kumar Firm v. Mahabir Prasad and Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, allowing a court to grant relief based on admitted facts and substance of pleadings even if not specifically prayed for

Additionally, it invoked the legal maxim that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong

On the first issue, the Tribunal held that the SC’s interim order dated 18.09.2015 was an arrangement to resume supply and did not supersede the CERC’s statutory jurisdiction to resolve transmission charge disputes arising under the Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (BPTA)

On the second issue, the Tribunal observed that under the 2010 Sharing Regulations, PTC (as the LTA grantee) was unconditionally liable for 100% of the transmission charges for the 300 MW capacity, regardless of the actual 95% usage for HPPC

The Tribunal found that PTC failed to relinquish the 5% LTA capacity for nearly four years, choosing instead to pass the financial burden onto KPL while retaining the capacity

It rejected PTC's procedural objection regarding the lack of a specific prayer in KPL's petition, ruling that since PTC admitted to making the deductions in its pleadings, the CERC was justified in directing a refund to prevent PTC from benefiting from its failure to relinquish the unused LTA portion

(i) the CERC had valid jurisdiction as the dispute was distinct from the issues before the Supreme Court

(ii) PTC is liable for 100% LTA charges to CTUIL until the date of formal relinquishment

(iii) PTC's deduction of 5% charges from KPL was illegal

PTC was directed to refund the deducted amounts to KPL with 9% interest within four weeks