IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY

(Appellate Jurisdiction)
IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

Dated: 17th May, 2024

Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chairperson

Hon’ble Smt. Seema Gupta, Technical Member (Electricity)

In the matter of:

M/s UJVN LIMITED

Through its Director (OPERATION),
UJJWAL, Maharani Bagh,
G.M.S. Road,
Dehradun - 248006 … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

1. UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

Through its Secretary,
Vidyut Niyamak Bhawan,
Near ISBT, P.O. Majra Dehradun,
Uttarakhand – 248171 …Respondent No.1

2. UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD

Through its Managing Director,
Victoria Cross,
Vijeta Gabar Singh Bhawan,
Kanwali Road,
Dehradun - 248001 …Respondent No.2

3. POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND

LIMITED
Through its Managing Director,
Vidyut Bhawan,
Near ISBT Crossing,
Saharanpur Road,
Majra, Dehradun – 248002. …Respondent No.3

4. M/s HIMALAYA HYDRO PVT. LTD.

Through its Managing Director,
Page 1 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

Plot No.179, Road No. 10-C

MLA and MPs Colony,
Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500033 …Respondent No.4

Counsel on record for the Appellant(s) : Saushriya Havelia

Tanvi Anand for App. 1

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s): Buddy A. Ranganadhan

Shefali Tripathi for Res. 1

Matrugupta Mishra
Swagitika Sahoo
Ritika Singhal
Nipun Dave
Sonakshi
Akanksha V. Ingole
Shashwat Dubey
Ananya Mishra for Res. 4

ORDER

PER HON’BLE SMT. SEEMA GUPTA, TECHNICAL MEMBER (ELECTRICITY)

1. The present IA No. 525 of 2024 has been filed by Appellant, M/s
Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd (“UJVNL”) in Appeal No 157 of 2024
against the Order dated 02.02.2024 in Petition No. 02 of 2024 and Order
dated 15.03.2024 in Misc. Application No. 10 of 2024 in Petition No 02 of
2024 passed by Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory commission
(“Respondent No 1/ UERC”), seeking ex parte ad interim relief in the form
of interim connectivity to its Suringad SHP ( 5MW).

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that UERC has only
partially allowed its prayer, granting interim connectivity of its Suringad SHP
to 33/11 KV Darati substation of UPCL from 15th December to 15th March till
the commissioning of Baram Sub-station, though it has sought interim
Page 2 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

connectivity from December till end of May, considering Low Flow Season (
LFS). M/s Himalaya Hydro Pvt Ltd, the (“Respondent No4 / HHPL”) has
its two hydro projects, namely, Motighat (5 MW) and Tanga (5 MW) SHP
connected to 33/11 KV Darati Substation. Learned Counsel of Appellant
further submitted that UERC vide its order dated 20.02.2023 in Misc.
Application No. 21 of 2022 has allowed ad interim connectivity to the
Suringad SHP up to 31.05.2023 subject to the fulfillment of following
directions:

“ i ) UPCL shall provide ad-interim connectivity to the

Petitioner’s Suringad ( 5 MW) SHP at 33/11 Kv Darati Sub-
station only after ensuring that Petitioner, in coordination with
UPCL, has installed Special Protection System ( SPS), line
reactor, Capacitor Bank etc, for restricting the generation at
Suringad SHP Appallent would install a SPS, line reactor and
capacitor banks etc for restricting the generation of Suringad
SHP during evacuation constraints conditions to regulate
voltage within specified limits

ii) 1st Right of evacuation shall vest with Respondent No. 3 and
in case of evacuation constraints, Suringad SHP shall be
backed down automatically using the SPS.”

3. On 02.03.2023, Respondent No 4 herein, ( Respondent No 3 in above

order) filed an Appeal No. 275 of 2023 before this Tribunal challenging the
above order dated 20.02.2023 passed in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022
by UERC. This Tribunal, on 03.03.2023, while issuing notice in the said
appeal, directed that no connectivity is to be provided to the Appellant
pending installation of SPS, and on 27.03.2023, this Tribunal directed UERC
to consider Low flow season (LFS) and hear the arguments of the Appellant
Page 3 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

and Respondent No.4 and submit its report to this Tribunal . Appeal No. 275
of 2023 was eventually dismissed by this Tribunal on 01.06.2023 on
becoming infructuous after the expiry of interim connectivity on 31.05.2023.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that as per the

directions of UERC, dated 26.09.2023, a fresh Petition being Petition No. 02
of 2024 was filed before the UERC on 18.12.2023 seeking interim connectivity
of its Suringad SHP (5 MW) for the months of January to May and December
during the Dry and Lean period from 33/11 kV Darati Sub-station till the
commissioning of 220 kV Baram Sub-station and associated lines. In this
backdrop, the impugned order had been passed by the UERC which has
allowed interim Connectivity up to 15th March. Learned Counsel for the
Appellant submitted that it has already installed SPS, Reactor and Capacitors
as directed by the UERC and after change of conductor by UPCL, evacuation
capacity of 33 KV has been enhanced to 16 MW, which is more than the
capacity of all the three projects put together especially during the low flow
season. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that UERC has
erroneously provided the connectivity up to 15th March and held that
connectivity post 15.03.2024 would jeopardize the interest of the Respondent
No.4, as this finding is contrary to its own observation in its order dated
02.02.2024 regarding the efficacy of the Special Protection System. Under
these circumstances, learned counsel for Appellant requested for interim
connectivity for its Suringad SHP up to end of May.

5. Per contra, Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 objected to providing

any interim connectivity to the Appellant’s Suringad SHP and submitted that
UPCL’s 33 KV network and its 33 /11 KV Darati Sub-station is experiencing
frequent trippings and abnormally high voltage condition and it is not able to

Page 4 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

evacuate full installed capacity + 10 % overload of its Motighat (5 MW) and

Tanga (5 MW) SHPs. Learned counsel also submitted the voltage data of
Motighat and Tanga SHP for 2022-23 and 2023-24. Learned counsel for
Respondent No 4 also raised objections as under:

i) No communication has been provided so as to effect the

disconnection of the Appellant’s project from Darati Sub-station.
ii) Relief Sought in the IA goes beyond the relief sought in the main
appeal and cannot be granted and relied on a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “MANOHAR LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. UGRASEN
(DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS” (2020 (11) SCC 557) (Paras 30 to 34).
iii) The Appellant has not challenged the earlier order passed by UERC,
therefore, it has attained finality.
iv) Respondent No.4’s claim of deemed generation is pending
adjudication since 2014 and this should also be taken into
consideration while deciding the balance of convenience.
v) Court cannot grant interim relief, which amounts to granting the main
relief prayed for in the appeal, and relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “A.C. MUTHIAH Vs. BOARD OF
CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ANOTHR” (2011 SCC 617).

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No 4 also submitted that they have

preferred an Appeal No. 106 of 2024 against the impugned order, which is
pending on the file of this Tribunal.

7. This Tribunal has observed that conditions of installing SPS, Reactor

and capacitors have been complied with by the Appellant for providing
interim Connectivity to safeguard the interest of Respondent No 4, as
recorded in the impugned order and also submitted by Appellant before this
Page 5 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

Tribunal on 27.05.2023. Looking into the present high power demand

scenario in the country, it should be the endeavor of one and all to harness
available generation capacity, more so a hydro resource, subject to technical
consideration but certainly not choosing one project over the other. In the
instant case, Respondent No. 4 has been provided with first right of
evacuation, and in any event of evacuation constraint, the Suringad SHP of
the Appellant shall be disconnected first, for which SPS has already been
provided. It has been observed that in terms of the earlier order dated
20.02.2023 passed by UERC, the interim Connectivity was considered to
be provided from December upto 31st May 2023, however, the same
appears to be un-availed presumably on account of non-installation of SPS
etc. In the impugned order, dated 02.02.2024, UERC has allowed interim
connectivity to Surangid HEP only up to 15th March and no deliberations
have been made regarding the reasons for deviation from the past order
dated 20.02.2023 allowing connectivity up to the month of May 2023.

8. On a perusal of the over voltage data submitted by Respondent No 4,

it has been observed that high voltage is existing at its generation projects
even when the generation project of the Appellant is not connected to the
Grid, and the contention of Respondent No. 4 that grant of interim
connectivity to Appellant’s project shall lead to high voltage and in turn shall
lead to limitation of generation from its project, could not be ascertained
from these submissions.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant affirmed that during the period of
interim connectivity of its Suringad SHP upto 15th March 2024, there was no
evacuation constraints from all the three SHPs, namely, Motighat, Tanga
and Suringad, so there was no requirement of SPS operation and that SPS
was never operated. Learned counsel for the Respondent UERC submitted
Page 6 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

the report of UPCL regarding voltage and generation profile, as directed

under the impugned order, however, no findings could be deciphered from
such submission, as it did not contain any remarks/observation if any
constraints were faced when Appellants’ Suringad SHP was connected to
the Grid up to 15th March 2024. Respondent No. 4 also could not place
any document that during the period upto 15th March 2024, when interim
connectivity was granted to the Suringad SHP of the Appellant, any
restriction on the evacuation of their SHP, namely, Motighat and Tanga
SHPs was put forth by the State Load Despatch Centre. The contention of
Respondent No. 4 regarding non-availability of OPGW communication, has
already been dealt with in the impugned order, which stated that in view of
only monitoring of single parameter of Voltage, OPGW communication vis-
a-vis PLCC is not of much relevance.

10. From the deliberations, it emerged that since SPS operation was not
warranted, it has not operated when interim connectivity to Suringad SHP
was provided up to 15th March 2024. In our opinion, efficacy of SPS and
other measures, so put in place after technical deliberations, should not be
questioned/doubted based on apprehensions that when required it will not
operate, as contended by learned counsel for Respondent No 4. The efficacy
of SPS would be an important factor while deciding the IA or the main
Appeal or the Appeal preferred by Respondent No 4.

11. Considering that the Appellant is a wholly owned Corporation of

Government of Uttrakhand, country reeling under high power demand
scenario necessitating harnessing of available generation resources,
efficacy of SPS; an issue while deciding IA/ main Appeal, we feel it most
appropriate to allow interim connectivity to Appellant’s Suringad SHP at
33/11 kV Darati Sub-station of UPCL for one week, commencing from 19th
Page 7 of 8
 IA No.525 OF 2024
APPEAL NO.157 OF 2024

May, 2024 till 25th May 2024. We direct the Respondent-UERC to get the
power evacuation from these three SHPs (Motighat, Tanga, Suringad)
including operation of SPS, monitored by UPCL on daily basis and a
detailed report submitted to this Tribunal by 27th May, 2024. Thereby we
shall also have the benefit of the report while deciding the rival submissions
urged by both the learned counsel for the Appellant and the 4th Respondent
in the I.A. As long as their first right of evacuation is ensured, the 4th
Respondent cannot claim to suffer prejudice on the Appellant being granted
interim connectivity. We are also of the considered view that, in case,
SPS does not operate the way it should and first right of evacuation gets
denied for the SHPs of Respondent No 4, then UPCL may disconnect the
Appellant’s Suringad HEP after recording detailed justification.

Post the I.A No. 525 of 2024 on 28.05.2024.

Pronounced in open court on this 17th Day of May, 2024

(Seema Gupta) (Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

Technical Member(Electricity) Chairperson

REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

ts/ag/dk

Page 8 of 8