Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri Deepak Lad, Member. The Tata Power Company Ltd. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 th Floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel: /65/69 Fax: Website: / CASE No. 43 of 2015 In the matter of Petition of Tata Power Company Ltd. (Distribution Business) for permitting it to continue supplying power to 6 consumers outside its Licence area Coram Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri Deepak Lad, Member The Tata Power Company Ltd. Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd....Respondent Impleaded Parties 1. Ordinance Factory, Ambarnath 2. Central Railway (Chola) 3. Experimental Watershed Study Unit 4. Khopoli Resort 5. Bhandup Complex of MCGM 6. Central Railway kv (Thane) Appearance For the Petitioner For the Respondent For MCGM Bhandup Complex For Ordinance Factory, Ambernath Smt. Deepa Chawan (Adv.) Shri Harinder Toor (Adv.) Shri Ramdeo Sharma (Rep.) Shri. Swapan Poddar (Rep.) ORDER Date: 10 May, The Tata Power Company Ltd. (Distribution Business) (TPC-D) had filed a Petition seeking Distribution Licence to supply electricity in Mumbai City and part of Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 1

2 Mumbai Suburban Area, and the area of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation including the area under Chene and Varsave villages. Vide its Order dated 14 August, 2014 in Case No. 90 of 2014, the Commission granted a Distribution Licence to TPC-D for the proposed area of supply. In its Petition, TPC-D had proposed to continue to supply 6 consumers located outside the proposed Licence area but who had been its consumers earlier due to historical reasons. While granting the Distribution Licence to TPC-D, the Commission had directed it to approach the Commission within six months, after consulting the consumers concerned and the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), in whose area of supply these consumers are situated, for an appropriate mandate to continue supplying power to them. 2. Accordingly, TPC-D filed a Petition on 16 March, 2015 for allowing it to continue to supply power supply to the 6 consumers outside its area of supply. 3. TPC-D s prayers are as follows: 1. Allow Tata Power to continue to supply to the Six Consumers being supplied power by Tata Power since their inception for historical reasons as per approval of Government of Maharashtra and the Hon ble Commission in the best interest of the public at large. 2. Condone any inadvertent omissions / errors / shortcomings and permit Tata Power to add / change / modify / alter this filling and make further submissions as may be required at a future date. 3. Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In its Petition, TPC-D has submitted that:- 4.1 TPC-D is a Distribution Licensee supplying electricity in Mumbai City and parts of Mumbai Suburban area since more than hundred years in terms of the Licences granted to it from time to time. 4.2 The term of the erstwhile Distribution Licence of TPC-D was till 15 August, TPC-D had filed an Application under Section 14 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 seeking a Distribution Licence for distribution of electricity in Mumbai City and part of Mumbai Suburban Area, and areas of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, including Chene and Varsave villages. The Licence Application also included a proposal for continuation of power supply to 6 consumers who are located geographically outside the proposed Licence Area and are in MSEDCL s area of supply but to whom TPC-D had been supplying power as per the earlier Licence Conditions. The 6 consumers are as follows: (i) Ordinance Factory Ambernath, 15 MVA (ii) Central Railway (Chola), 65 MVA (iii) Experimental Watershed Study Unit, Khalapur 1 kva (iv) Khopoli Resort, 2 kva Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 2

3 (v) Bhandup Complex of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) 10 MVA (vi) Central Railway- 100 kv (Thane) 7 MVA 4.3 TPC-D has been historically supplying power to these 6 consumers under its earlier Licences, viz., Bombay (Hydro Electric) Licence 1907, Andhra Valley (Hydro Electric) Licence 1919, Nila Mula (Hydro Electric) Licence 1921 and The Trombay Thermal Power Electric Licence 1953, as amended from time to time. These Licences were transferred to The Tata Power Company Ltd. by the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) for the supply of electricity to the public in its Mumbai Licence Area and to supply energy in bulk to Distribution Licensees, vide resolution No: IEA 2001/ CR-10509/NRG-1, dated July 12, The historical background of TPC-D s supply to these 6 consumers is as follows: Central Railway (Chola Kalyan):- TPC-D has been supplying to Railways since 1907 as per clause 6(b) of Bombay (Hydro Electric) Licence In 1929, the Chola Power Plant of Railways at Thakurli was commissioned to supply to Railways, and was connected to the Tata System which was integrally known as the Tata Railway System. In 1980, a major portion of TPC-D s distribution area along with significant number of consumers was transferred to the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). However, power supply to Railways at Chola was decided to be continued on the Tata Railway System even after amendment to the Licence effective from 1 July, Chola was considered as a part of the Tata Railway System, and hence the interconnection between TPC-D s distribution network and Railways was continued Central Railway (Thane):- TPC-D has been supplying electricity to Central Railways at 22 kv voltage level. Thereafter, on request of Railways, supply at 110 kv has also been provided at various points from Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) such as Parel and Dharavi. Railways had requested 110 kv supply from Vikhroli also. However, for cost optimization, it was jointly decided to source the 110 kv supply from TPC-D s Salsette Receiving Sub-station (RSS) which was near Vikhroli. The State Transmission Utility (STU) sanctioned the connectivity to Central Railways through 110 kv bays from Salsette RSS on 18 September, Thus, TPC-D s supply arrangement to Railways continued from both supply points, i.e. Salsette and Chola, Kalyan Ordinance Factory:- TPC-D has been supplying power to the Ordinance Factory in Ambernath since 1925 at 110 kv level. The Licence amendment effective from 1 July, 1980 explicitly mentioned that the Ordinance Factory will continue to be supplied by TPC-D. Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 3

4 4.4.4 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Bhandup Complex:- TPC-D has been supplying MCGM s Bhandup Complex since As per TPC- D s Licence amendment effective from 1 July, 1980, the MCGM Bhandup Complex continued to be supplied by TPC-D Experimental Watershed Study Unit, Khopoli, and Khopoli Resort: These consumers are being supplied on specific requests from MSEDCL (erstwhile MSEB). In 1988, MSEB had granted a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to TPC-D to supply these consumers as MSEB did not have a network. On MSEB s application, GoM, on 18 February 1989 granted permission to TPC-D to supply these consumers. 4.5 Subsequently, in 2008, the Commission issued Specific Conditions of Distribution Licence applicable to TPC-D without any change in the area of supply which was stipulated under the old Licences: The Area of Supply within which the Distribution Licensee is authorised to supply electricity shall be the whole of the area as described in (1) The Bombay (Hydro-Electric) License, 1907; (2) The Andhra Valley (Hydro- Electric) License, 1919; (3) The Nila Mula Valley (Hydro-Electric) License, 1921; (4) The Trombay Thermal Power Electric License, 1953 (collectively referred to as, TPCL Licenses ) subject to such conditions and exclusions as specified in the said TPCL Licenses. 4.6 On 14 August 2014, while granting Distribution Licence No. 1 of 2014 to TPC- D in Case No. 90 of 2014, the Commission, in respect of power supply to the 6 consumers, held as follows:- The Commission, therefore, in exercise of the power vested in the Commission under Section 14 of the 2003 Act, grants Distribution Licence to TPCL to supply electricity in the proposed area of supply for a period of 25 years from August 16, The Commission further issues the following directions: (c) TPCL is directed to approach the Commission in a separate Petition to seek a mandate pertaining to the six identified consumers outside the geographical area of TPCL s Licence within six months. Till such time a decision in the Petition is arrived TPCL shall continue to supply such consumers under the existing terms and conditions The Order further states that: However, keeping the important public functions being served by some of these consumers (such as the Central Railways and others) the Commission is not inclined to jeopardize the continuity of supply to these consumers by TPC immediately, especially since no objection has been raised to this historical arrangement in these proceedings by TPC, the incumbent licensee in their areas (i.e., MSEDCL), the consumer themselves or any other party. However, TPC shall approach the Commission after consulting the Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 4

5 consumers concerned and MSEDCL seeking an appropriate mandate to continue supplying power to these consumers. 4.8 In compliance with the above directions, TPC-D had detailed discussions with the 6 consumers. Discussions with MSEDCL for a NOC for continuing power supply to the 6 consumers are in progress. Accordingly, TPC-D has filed the present Petition to seek the necessary mandate for continuation of power supply by TPC-D to the 6 consumers. 4.9 Consent letters were received from the Ordinance Factory, Ambernath and MCGM Bhandup Complex. Railways have given a letter to MSEDCL dated 7 October, 2014 expressing their intent to continue with TPC-D till final Orders of the Commission From the consent letters, it is evident that these consumers wish to continue the existing power supply arrangement with TPC-D, due to the quality and reliability of services. The islanding scheme of TPC-D also protects them in case of external occurrences/disturbances on the grid which is crucial for their operations/beneficiaries The Commission had directed TPC-D to consult MSEDCL regarding its NOC to continue supplying to these 6 consumers. Accordingly TPC-D has approached MSEDCL to continue the existing arrangement considering the historical background and preference of all consumers Earlier, MSEDCL had communicated the option of transferring the 6 consumers to MSEDCL or pay Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) to it. In its reply, TPC-D had requested MSEDCL to continue the existing arrangement considering the historical background and consent of the consumers. The matter is still under discussion with MSEDCL and has not been concluded so far. However due to the timeline, this Petition is being submitted as per the direction of the Commission 4.13 In the recent discussions with MSEDCL, there has been a positive consideration of TPC-D s request and accordingly a letter No. COO & ED/MSEDCL/2015/22 dated 12 March 2015 has also been submitted to MD, MSEDCL for providing NOC to continuation of supply to all 6 consumers Further, in the case of Khopoli consumers, MSEDCL, vide its letter dated 24 December 2014, has requested TPC-D to continue the power supply arrangement for these two consumers till MSEDCL s network is established in that area. 5. In its Reply dated 7 November, 2015, MSEDCL has stated that:- 5.1 TPC-D has been supplying electricity to 6 consumers under historical arrangements considering the then prevailing situation and as per the applicable Acts, Rules and Regulations. The present provisions of EA, 2003 do not envisage that a Distribution Licensee can continue to supply electricity to consumers outside its Licence area. Since Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 5

6 all 6 consumers are outside the Licence area of TPC-D, it would not be appropriate for TPC-D to continue to supply these consumers under the present legal provisions. 5.2 Considering the practical difficulties and requirements of infrastructure development, MSEDCL feels that TPC-D may be allowed to supply to the 6 consumers under Open Access on payment of CSS as may be determined by the Commission. 5.3 The basic purpose of CSS is clearly defined as charge to be paid by a consumer to offset the cross subsidy which would have been normally paid to the Distribution Licensee had he continued to be the consumer of that Licensee. If these consumers had been with MSEDCL, the majority being HT consumers, they would have provided the much needed cross subsidy so as to provide economical Tariff to low end consumers of MSEDCL, and MSEDCL has been losing the legitimate revenue to which it is entitled. The CSS envisaged in EA, 2003 and National Tariff Policy is meant to compensate Distribution Licensees for the loss of cross subsidy that it would suffer because of the high end consumers taking supply from other sources. Therefore, MSEDCL must be compensated for such loss of cross subsidy by way of applicable CSS. 5.4 Vide its Judgment dated 25 April, 2014 in Sesa Sterlite Ltd V/s OERC (Civil Appeal No of 2013), the Supreme Court has ruled that CSS is the charge payable by a consumer who opts for power supply from someone other than such Distribution Licensee in whose area it is situated. 5.5 The Commission may allow MSEDCL to collect CSS and other charges as per the Open Access Regulations from the date of applicability of CSS. Monthly CSS and other charges from all such consumers may be collected by TPC-D and reimbursed to MSEDCL. 6. Vide letter dated 11 January, 2016, the MCGM stated that its Bhandup Complex Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is one of the 6 consumers. Initially, MCGM had wished to continue to receive power supply from TPC-D, and NOC to that effect was also given to it. However, as per the existing rates, the tariff of MSEDCL supply would be Rs per KWh, while the tariff of TPC-D is higher at Rs per KWh, TPC-D having no separate category for WTPs. The Bhandup WTP provides potable water to Mumbai city at a subsidized rate, and requires continuous electricity supply. MCGM has no objection to switching over to MSEDCL. Necessary arrangements for 110 kv EHV supply at the MCGM 110 KV sub-station would be sorted out between TPC-D and MSEDCL, and suitable arrangements would be made by MSEDCL. The Bhandup Complex would be entitled to be charged at the MSEDCL HT IV Public Water Works and Sewage Treatment Plan tariff category as determined from time to time. MCGM should not be put to any extra cost since it provides services to the public and is not a commercial entity. 7. At the hearing held on 14 January, 2016, 7.1 TPC-D reiterated its submissions and the background of the Petition, which has been filed as per the direction of the Commission in its Licence Order dated 14 August, 2014 in Case No. 90 of In the context of its erstwhile Licence pre-dating the EA, 2003, Section 185 of EA, 2003, which deals with repeal and savings, allows TPC-D to Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 6

7 continue to supply to the 6 consumers who are now in the jurisdiction of MSEDCL. TPC-D refuted MSEDCL s claim for CSS, since these consumers are being supplied by TPC-D on its own network. It is also not required to pay CSS in these circumstances in view of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 2005 issued by the Central Government. Moreover, these 6 consumers are contributing to TPC-D s current level of cross subsidy. 7.2 MSEDCL questioned the legality of such supply by TPC-D, which has not furnished documentary evidence of any authorizations granted under the repealed laws to supply power to these consumers. Even if there were any, these authorizations cease to exist after the enactment of the EA, The Removal of Difficulties Order cited by TPC- D is not applicable to the present Case, and MSEDCL is entitled to CSS from the date the EA, 2003 came into force. On a query by the Commission, MSEDCL submitted that TPC-D may be allowed to supply to these consumers on payment of CSS to it. 7.3 TPC-D responded that it has annexed documents along with the Petition which demonstrate its authority to supply power to all 6 consumers. Inspite of being aware of such arrangement being in existence since a long time, MSEDCL raised no objection on it during the proceedings for grant of Distribution Licence or prior to that. Moreover, no issue regarding authorizations under the repealed laws was raised by MSEDCL in its Reply dated 7 November, The MCGM Representative, with regard to the Bhandup Complex, expressed satisfaction with the quality of services of TPC-D. However, it may prefer MSEDCL as its Distribution Licensee due to its lower Tariff for the separate Public Water Works category which would be applicable, provided it supplies reliable power. 7.5 The Commission asked MSEDCL to submit whether a similar situation exists elsewhere, i.e. MSEDCL supplying consumers outside its licensed area or other Distribution Licensees supplying in MSEDCL s area. 8. Vide its letter dated 10 March, 2016, MSEDCL submitted that there are two consumers namely, Asst. Executive Engineer (Elect.), Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) Rural S/dn at Dhamane Gaon, Belgaum Dist. and Executive Engineer, KEB Bidar at Chondi (Bk) village, both in the State of Karnataka, who are being supplied by MSEDCL. The supply in both cases is at the 11 kv and Connected Load is 75 KW. Commission s Analysis and Ruling 9. The following issues arise for consideration of the Commission: I] Should TPC-D be allowed to continue supplying the consumers who are outside its Licence area? II] If it is held that TPC-D can continue to supply these consumers, would MSEDCL be entitled to CSS on that account, as sought by MSEDCL? Issue I: Should TPC-D be allowed to continue supplying the consumers who are outside its Licence area? Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 7

8 9.1 The Commission notes that, while granting / amending the earlier Licences of TPC-D (i.e., under the repealed laws), the State Government made specific provisions or authorized TPC-D to supply to these 6 consumers even after rationalization of the distribution arrangement as between TPC-D and the erstwhile MSEB which was effected from 1 July, This arrangement was approved by the State Government and was within the framework of the erstwhile enactments. 9.2 Pursuant to the EA, 2003, TPC-D was a deemed Distribution Licensee and the Commission notified the Specific Conditions of Distribution Licence Regulations for TPC-D in 2008, under which the earlier supply dispensation in respect of TPC-D remained unaltered. These Regulations specified that TPC-D s Licence shall remain in force till 15 August, Accordingly, TPC-D was authorized to continue to supply these consumers till that date. 9.3 In its Application for Distribution Licence in Case No. 90 of 2014, TPC-D proposed to continue to supply these 6 consumers outside its proposed Licence area. While granting a fresh Distribution Licence by its Order dated 14 August, 2014, the Commission specified the geographical boundaries of TPC-D s Licence area. These 6 consumers are outside that area. However, keeping in view the important public functions being served by some (such as the Central Railways and others) and also considering that no objection was raised to this historical arrangement in those proceedings by MSEDCL, the consumers themselves or by any other party, the Commission did not consider it appropriate to jeopardize the continuity of their supply by TPC-D immediately. However, the Commission directed TPC-D to approach the Commission, after consulting the consumers concerned and MSEDCL, for a mandate to continue supplying power to them. The Commission also noted that, even otherwise, these consumers were free to opt for supply from MSEDCL in accordance with the law. 9.4 TPC-D has contended that Section 185 of EA, 2003, which deals with repeal and savings, allows it to continue to supply the 6 consumers who are in MSEDCL s area of supply. Section 185(2)(a) states that, notwithstanding the repeal of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and other electricity laws, (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorization or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act; Regulation 4.1 of the MERC (Specific Conditions of Distribution Licence applicable to The Tata Power Co. Ltd.) Regulations, 2008 specifies the area of Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 8

9 supply of TPC-D in terms of the earlier 4 Licences, and Rule 5 specifies that its Licence would remain in force till 15 August, 2014, i.e. for the remaining period for which TPC-D shall be deemed to be a Distribution Licensee under the EA, Thus, at least after the grant of a new Distribution Licence vide the Commission s Order dated 14 August, 2014, the earlier dispensation which TPC- D cites as allowing it to supply to the 6 consumers in question no longer survived. Hence, the Commission directed TPC-D to approach it separately for a mandate to do so. 9.5 However, the EA, 2003 has no provision for a Distribution Licensee to supply electricity to consumers outside its licensed area of supply except through the Open Access dispensation. The Commission notes that (i) (ii) Grant of a Distribution Licence to any person under Section 14 is necessarily in respect of an area as may be specified in the Licence. Section 2(3) defines area of supply as the area within which a Distribution Licensee is authorized by his Licence to supply electricity. (iii) Section 2(17) provides that a Distribution Licensee is a licensee authorized to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply. (iv) However, under the 9 th proviso to Section 14, a Distribution Licensee does not require a licence to undertake trading in electricity; trading is defined in Section 2(65) as purchase of electricity for resale thereof, and is not relevant to the present matter of supply of electricity by TPC- D outside its area to certain consumers in its capacity as a Distribution Licensee. 9.6 In view of the foregoing, TPC-D s contention that there is no bar on it directly supplying the 6 consumers outside its Distribution Licence area, as defined in the Commission s Order dated 14 August, 2014 and its new Licence, is not legally tenable. 9.7 However, MSEDCL, which is the authorized Distribution Licensee for the area in which the six consumers are located, has not indicated its readiness to supply them within a definite time-frame. MSEDCL has stated that TPC-D may be continued to supply these consumers on payment of CSS to it. In case of two consumers, viz. Experimental Watershed Study Unit, Khopoli and Khopoli Resort, vide letter dated 24 December, 2014 MSEDCL requested TPC-D to continue power supply till development of MSEDCL s infrastructure. Considering the unpreparedness of MSEDCL, the Commission is not inclined to jeopardize the continuity of supply to these consumers, and allows TPC-D to continue to supply them for the time being although they are outside its Licence Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 9

10 area. However, this is without prejudice to the right of these consumers to seek supply from MSEDCL instead of TPC-D in terms of the relevant provisions of the EA, 2003, the Electricity Supply Code and the Standards of Performance Regulations. 9.8 At the same time, MSEDCL needs to set up its own distribution infrastructure to enable it to provide connections and supply electricity to these six consumers to meet its Universal Service Obligation, and so that they can exercise their choice to obtain all or part of their requirements from MSEDCL or from other sources, including TPC-D, through Open Access or other relevant provisions of the EA, Issue II: If it is held that TPC-D can continue to supply these consumers, would MSEDCL be entitled to claim CSS? 9.9 TPC-D has contested MSEDCL s claim that the 6 consumers in the latter s area but being supplied by TPC-D are liable to pay CSS, citing the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, That Order exempts the electricity being supplied, on the authorization of the State Government under Section 27 of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910, by a Distribution Licensee from levy of CSS until the validity of the authorization, and TPC-D has sought to show that such authorization was given and subsisted. However, the Commission is of the view that, as will be seen from the discussion on Issue I above, the authorization, if any, referred to in the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, would not subsist at least after the grant of the new Distribution Licence from 15 August, In support of its claim that, though it has no objection to TPC-D continuing to supply the 6 consumers, MSEDCL is entitled to CSS (from the coming into force of the EA, 2003, or in any event from the grant of the new Licence to TPC-D), MSEDCL has cited the Supreme Court Judgment dated 25 April, 2014 in Civil Appeal No of 2013 (Sesa Sterlite Ltd. V/s OERC), para. 29 of which reads as follows: 29. In order to be liable to pay cross subsidy surcharge to a distribution licensee, it is necessary that such distribution licensee must be a distribution licensee in respect of the area where the consumer is situated and it is not necessary that such consumer should be connected only to such distribution licensee but it would suffice if it is a consumer within the aforesaid definition The Commission notes that the context of that Judgment was quite different from that of the present Case. Appeal No of 2013 concerned whether at all the Appellant in that matter could be considered to be a Distribution Licensee in effect even though he was admittedly a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Developer under the deemed Licensee proviso to Section 14(b) of the EA, 2003, and also dealt with the nature of supply to him from a Generator. Moreover, MSEDCL s Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 10

11 claim to CSS needs to be seen in the light of the objective of CSS. Para. 28 of the same Supreme Court Judgment also states that Thus, Cross Subsidy Surcharge, broadly speaking, is the charge payable by a consumer who opt to avail power supply through open access from someone other than such Distribution licensee in whose area it is situated 9.11 The facts of the present Case are that the 6 consumers in question were never connected to or supplied by MSEDCL, nor is (or was) its infrastructure being used. There is no loss of cross-subsidy on account of these consumers continuing to get supply from TPC-D. These consumers are being supplied by TPC-D from the beginning, the historical background to which, as stated by TPC-D, has been set out at para. 4.4 of this Order. This was being done by TPC-D with the full knowledge and acceptance, and in some cases even at the request of MSEDCL. Even now, MSEDCL has expressed practical difficulties and infrastructure constraints to enabling it to supply these consumers, and has not indicated any time-frame within which it would be able to supply them through its own infrastructure. The Commission also notes that, until the present proceedings, MSEDCL has never claimed CSS earlier, either after the EA, 2003 came into force or even after the new Distribution Licence was granted to TPC-D on 15 August, It may be mentioned in passing that, while providing details of the consumers in Karnataka (outside its Licence area) to whom it is supplying power, MSEDCL is silent as to whether or not CSS is being paid to the concerned Licensee of that area. The Commission can only presume that no CSS is being paid by those consumers In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not find any merit in MSEDCL s claim for CSS from the 6 consumers being supplied by TPC-D merely on the ground that they are situated in its Licence area. With the above, The Petition of The Tata Power Company Ltd. in Case No. 43 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member Order in Case No. 43 of 2015 Page 11