Overlooking materially distinct facts and submissions constitutes an error apparent warranting review.

SEIL Energy India Limited, formerly Sembcorp Energy India Limited, entered into a Bulk Power Transmission Agreement for Long-Term Access (LTA) on 24 December 2010 for transmitting 500 MW from its power plant in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Although the LTA was required to be operationalised by January 2014, SEIL’s Power Purchase Agreement was executed only on 1 April 2013 and its two generating units were commissioned on 2 March 2015 and 15 September 2015.

Since the LTA had not been operationalised, SEIL applied for Medium-Term Open Access (MTOA) on 30 July 2015, which was granted on 10 September 2015.

After the LTA was operationalised on 21 June 2016, SEIL requested confirmation regarding termination or downsizing of its MTOA and, alternatively, sought relinquishment of the MTOA.

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited accepted the relinquishment but declined to waive the applicable charges and raised a PoC bill of ₹8,94,56,167 towards transmission charges/relinquishment-related liability.

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission dismissed SEIL’s challenge by order dated 30 October 2017. SEIL challenged that order in Appeal No. 16 of 2018.

The appeal was heard along with Appeal No. 363 of 2017 filed by GMR Warora Energy Limited.

By a common judgment dated 11 April 2019, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed SEIL’s civil appeal but granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if any issue had not been considered or if the finding that SEIL had agreed to pay relinquishment charges was factually incorrect.

SEIL consequently filed the present review petition.

Whether the judgment dated 11 April 2019 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record by deciding SEIL’s appeal on the basis of facts and submissions relating exclusively to GMR Warora’s appeal.

Whether SEIL had consented to payment of relinquishment charges in the same manner as GMR Warora, thereby justifying the Tribunal’s finding against SEIL.

Whether Regulation 24 of the CERC Connectivity and Open Access Regulations, 2009 independently required payment of relinquishment charges when MTOA capacity was relinquished upon operationalisation of LTA.

The Tribunal applied the review jurisdiction principle that a judgment may be reviewed where there is a patent, manifest or glaring error apparent on the face of the record resulting in miscarriage of justice.

It considered Regulation 24 of the CERC Connectivity and Open Access Regulations, 2009, which governs relinquishment of MTOA and was treated in the original judgment as imposing relinquishment charges in absolute terms, without an exemption merely because the same capacity was subsequently used under LTA.

The Tribunal also referred to the CERC Open Access Regulations, 2004, the CERC Open Access Regulations, 2009, and the CERC Sharing Regulations, 2010 in the background of the open-access and transmission-charge framework.

[object Object]

The Tribunal found that the two appeals involved a common relief but materially different factual contexts.

The original judgment expressly stated that, for brevity, it would consider the facts and submissions in GMR Warora’s appeal because they were allegedly similar to SEIL’s case.

However, the reasoning paragraphs relied on facts unique to GMR Warora: its request in the 15 July 2015 meeting to obtain MTOA while agreeing to pay relinquishment charges, the conditions attached to its LTA, and its letter dated 13 January 2016 consenting to payment of such charges.

None of those facts existed in SEIL’s case.

SEIL had not made a similar undertaking or consent, and its case arose because its previously granted LTA had not been operationalised when its plant and PPA became operational.

Although the Tribunal acknowledged that Regulation 24 could constitute an independent additional ground for imposing charges, it held that the failure to consider SEIL’s own facts and submissions, coupled with reliance on GMR-specific circumstances, constituted a patent and material error apparent on the face of the record.

The Tribunal held that its judgment dated 11 April 2019 had erroneously dismissed SEIL’s Appeal No. 16 of 2018 by applying facts and circumstances belonging to GMR Warora’s appeal and by proceeding on the mistaken basis that SEIL had consented to payment of relinquishment charges.

The judgment was accordingly set aside insofar as it concerned SEIL Energy India Limited, while being maintained in force against GMR Warora Energy Limited.

Appeal No. 16 of 2018 was directed to be listed for hearing on 21 August 2026.