APTEL Declines Relief To AMP Energy On Account Of Delay

APTEL Declines Relief To AMP Energy On Account Of Delay

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), in its latest judgment, has declined to offer relief to AMP Energy Green Seventeen Private Limited due to the company’s delayed approach to the tribunal. This decision follows a delay of 374 days by the applicant in challenging an order issued by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC).

AMP Energy had approached APTEL, contending that the impugned order passed by the WBERC lacked jurisdiction. The order in question involved the approval of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and the adoption of a tariff for a grid-connected wind-solar hybrid project. The applicant argued that WBERC wrongfully assumed jurisdiction and approved a tariff of ₹2.92/kWh, as well as the PPA executed between the company and CESC Limited for the purchase of 150 MW of AC wind-solar hybrid power for interstate supply over a period of 25 years.

The company further stated that the project was stalled due to external factors, including the cancellation of capacity transfer proceedings and policy-related observations by the Andhra Pradesh government. It pointed out that a government order from Andhra Pradesh, which directed that no file involving land allotment or fund release should be processed further, made it impossible for AMP Energy to procure the necessary land parcels. Consequently, the company issued a force majeure notice and requested an extension of the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD), which was not granted.

Final APTEL judgement 

Despite these submissions, APTEL refused to grant relief due to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It observed: “This delay of more than one year in filing the appeal, if examined in the light of the statutory obligation imposed on this Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of the main Appeal itself within 180 days, is undoubtedly inordinate. As a result, this period of delay, for which sufficient cause has not been shown, cannot be condoned, more so as it appears, in the light of the observations made earlier in this order, that the bonafides of the appellant, in invoking the appellate jurisdiction belatedly are, in doubt.”

The Tribunal further added: “Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to condone the inordinate delay of more than one year in filing the present appeal. The application to condone the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal is rejected, as the Appellant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined whether or not the appellant is entitled to be granted extension of SCOD on account of force majeure events.”