Vs.

State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Suman Banerjee ... For the petitioners Mr. Kishore Dutta , Ld. A.G. ... for the State The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to two notifications dated February 26, 2020 and March 4, 2020 by which the existing reservation in favour of the doctors has been replaced by 10 per cent weightage given to doctors serving in rural areas in all places which are locally remote.

In the earlier matter bearing writ petition no. W.P.5365(W) of 2020 which also dealt with the same notifications an order has been passed directing that the provisional list and the final list may be published as per weightage proposed in the impugned notifications in the writ petition. Needless to mention the admissions given shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition. In my view that order shall also govern the present writ petition.

It is to be noted that earlier petitioner has also filed a writ petition being WP 5064 (W) of 2020 challenging the transfer.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not join the new college due to several reasons including his ill-health. He further submits that his salary has been stopped and he has not received the salary from the month of March 2020 onwards.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, has defended the action of the university and submitted that the university had no intention to stop payment of the petitioner's salary. The same, according to him, has taken place due to the petitioner not having joined his new post even though the transfer order was issued on March 3, 2020.

And In the matter of: Amit Kumar Kamat @ Amit Kumar @ Lala...petitioner Mr. Koustav Bagchi.........for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed.........................for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hour of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The petitioner claims that since the petitioner has been in custody for a long time and the charges are of dacoity, the petitioner should be given a reprieve temporarily.

And In the matter of : Dipraj @ Dipu Chhetri & Ors.

... Petitioners Mr. Navanil De .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. The case of the first petitioner appears to be on a different footing than the two other petitioners. Though the names of the two other petitioners were mentioned in the initial complaint and in the eye witness' account, the first petitioner is neither named nor did the eye witness allude to him.

And In the matter of : Kheru Mondal & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Subir Debnath .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

And In the matter of : Sonu Singh & Anr.

... Petitioners Mr. Arka Chakraborty .. for the Petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 3356 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kushmandi Police Station Case No. 25 of 2020 dated 05.03.2020 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of : Jahirdur Islam @ Jahedur & Anr.

... Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra .. for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee ..for the State The petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

ab with 01 CRAN 1583 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.04.2020 in connection with Bally Police Station Case No. 25 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 under Sections 195(A)/506/509/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re :- Bikash Pandey @ Vikash Pandey @ Vicky ... Petitioner.

Mr. Achin Jana ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

ab with 02 CRAN1420 of 2020 (Via Video Conferencing)

In the matter of : an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Egra P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 under Sections 341/354A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

And In Re :- Laltu Jana ... Petitioner. Sk. Sahjahan Ali ... For the Petitioner. Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. P. Bose ... For the State

04. 2020 b.

CRM No. 2996 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 117/2019 dated 22.10.2019 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

And In the matter of : Hablu Bag @ Bhatuk ... Petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra .. for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed ..for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

Sri Barid Baran Roy & ors.

Mr. Anindya Bose.

.....for the petitioner.

Mr. D. Banerjee.

....for the O.P. No. 1 Mr. Arijit Bardhan.

...for the O.P. Nos. 15 & 16.

This matter has been listed at the instance of the learned advocate for the petitioner for extension of an interim order dated December 23, 2019, passed by this Bench. It is contended that all the opposite parties have been served as per the direction of the Court and the affidavit-of-service will be filed before the Regular Bench.

Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties 15 and 16, is also present via video conference.

We see that one thing that the petitioner has sounded in the status report dated 28 th April, 2020 submitted by him is to provide undersea cable link for ensuring better connectivity and communication to the islanders. He has also pointed out that in the fitness of things it would be proper that the High Court Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court should also include an independent medical expert who can 2 advise the Monitoring Committee on medical matters. It is suggested that High Court Monitoring Committee includes a person who has expertise in the management of contagious diseases.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With W.P. No.5334 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Dr. Vimal Khawas Ph.D With W.P. No. 5335 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Mr. Ritesh Tiwari With W.P. No. 5336 (W) of 2020 In re: Letter of Raja Satyajit Banerjee The order dated 28.04.2020 be corrected by substituting the word "warriors" in the place and stead of the word "worriers" in the 1 st sentence of 2nd paragraph at page 5 of the order.

Vs.

Smt. Manika Dhara (Pal) and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

Vs.

Kalyan Kishore Pradhan and Ors. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana ..for the Applicants Let the matter appear a fortnight hence whenever the court convenes.

The State should show cause why the State should not be directed to pay the writ petitioner's salary till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the writ petitioner undertaking to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds.

Advocate for the writ petitioner should communicate this direction to Advocate appearing for the State and the relevant authorities well in advance of the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of hearing of the writ petition was served on the DMC by mail today ,i.e. the 7th of May, 2020.

By the impugned notice the petitioner has been threatened with eviction from the premises in issue inspite of the submitted fact that the respondents/DMC is still collecting rents from the petitioner.

The petitioner also alleges that the impugned notice is not preceded by a show cause alleging any acts of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner to continue to be in possession of the premises 2 in issue which the petitioner further submits is under an active lease which has not been terminated.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued by the Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal dated 6.5.2020 being no. 334/MA/O/C­4/1A­1/2020 as issued by its Principal Secretary.

By the said impugned notification the powers of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) has been vested on a Board of Administrators (BOA).

2

Mr Bhattacharyya submits that the said power has been exercised in abuse of jurisdiction by invoking section 634 of the KMC Act (as amended).

The point stressed by Mr. Bhattacharyya is that the Chairman of the BOA, who is the Mayor as on today of the KMC, cannot appoint himself to the BOA as its Chairman by invoking powers in the name of the Governor as Minister of the Department of Urban Development and Municipal affairs.

-vs-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Soumopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Abhishek Gupta Ms. Ishita Roy.........Advocates For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.PP Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee.........Advocate Heard on : 11.02.2020 Judgment on : 07.05.2020 Arijit Banerjee, J.: 1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12th

February, 1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 96 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/94, thereby holding the appellants guilty of having committed offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The appellants are two (2) out of thirteen (13) accused persons. Nine (9) accused persons were acquitted by the Ld. Trial Judge and four (4) accused persons including the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two (2) of the convicts died during the pendency of the appeal.

1. This is an Application seeking stay of operation of the Order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Central Commission") whereby the State Commission in Petition NO. 54 of 2017 has determined the completed capital cost of GVK's 540 MW power project located in Punjab as under:

S.No. Claimed by Recomm- Approved GVK ended by by the Ld. Joint PSERC* Auditor 1. Land 123.77 123.77 96.75 2. Preliminary Expenses 0.25 0.25 3. Boiler Turbine Generator 1050.22 1050.17 1050.17 Package including Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 4. Balance of Plant including 927.40 895.06 783.57 Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 5. Duties. Spares for BTG Package. 0.11 0.11 6. Non-EPC. 337.31 285.56 204.60 7. Start-Up Expenses 31.68 15.00 0 7. Power and Water for 32.57 32.57 32.10 Construction. 8. Consultancy and 54.13 11.03 Engineering charges 9. Pre-operative Expenses 186.55 126.56 74.04 10. Insurance 16.56 16.56 16.56 11. Capital Cost excluding 2760.55 - 2269.18 IDC & Financing Charges Page 2 of 98 IA NO. 136 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2020 12. Interest During 1474.84 1455.77 777.50 Construction (IDC) 13. Financing Charges 31.99 31.99 11.69 14. Total Capital Cost 4267.38 4103.83 3058.37

1. The Appellant is a generator maintaining and operating two units of coal-fired thermal generation plants. For purposes of setting up the said units, the construction work started some time in 2011. It had entered into an arrangement with the second Respondent (Discom) for supply of electricity for purposes of start-up, its need continuing the first unit having been commissioned on 11.02.2014 followed by the second unit commissioned on 02.08.2015.

2. The Appellant was a consumer for start-up power for the period 01.09.2013 to 31.05.2015. By the billing raised for supply of such electricity in terms of the Supply Agreement dated 07.01.2013, the Respondent Discom treated it as a commercial consumer on the reasoning that it would fall in the residual category, referring in this context to the tariff schedule, in absence of any separate category for start-up power consumer being specified in tariff schedule.

1. Indian Railways, an establishment working under the control of the Central Government in terms of the Railways Act, 1989, has been constrained to come to this Tribunal by the present appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to assail the decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TNERC" Appeal No. 188 of 2019 & IA No.980 of 2019 Page 2 of 9 or "State Commission") dated 25.03.2019 passed in Petition No. M.P. 4 of 2019, declining to entertain the request, inter-alia, for direction to the respondents - State Transmission and Distribution Companies - to process the application and grant non-discriminatory open access based on its claim of being a deemed licensee with certain other ancillary reliefs, the prime reason being that the State Commission was not satisfied with the "form" in which such petition had been presented.

Mr. Hemant Sahai Mr. Aditya K. Singh Ms. Anukriti Jain Ms. Molshree Bhatnagar Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Ms. Poorva Saigal Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. Shubham Arya Ms. Tanya Sareen Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey for R-2 2 Original Petition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2019 Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Nishant for R-3 & 4 Mr. Brahmanandam (Rep.) for R-5 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019 SB Energy Solar Private Limited 1st Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, Delhi - 110037. .... PETITIONER Versus

1. These Appeals are filed by the solar power plants challenging impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "APERC" or "State Commission"). The petitions pending before APERC was for 9 Appeal Nos. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 & 373 of 2019 approval for procurement of power by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which are hereinafter referred to as "AP Discoms", at the tariff competitively determined.

1. The present Execution Petition is filed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Page 1 of 25 EP No.09 of 2016 in A. No. 171 of 2012 Limited ("TPDDL/Petitioner") for execution of the Judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2012. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the tariff order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Delhi Commission/Respondent") in Petition No. 05 of 2012 whereby, the true up of expenses of the Petitioner for FY 2010-11 and ARR for the Control Period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 were determined. By the said judgment this Tribunal has inter-alia decided as under:-

1. The relevant Tariff Regulations - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Tariff Regulations 2014") - in so far as they govern the obligation of the procurer of electricity to pay to the generating company for the supply received do not define or specify the "due date" for such payment. The Regulations do make provision for incentive for timely payment, the rebate admissible being subject to gradual decrease over the period specified also specifying surcharge leviable for late payment. As is the usual practice in the power industry, the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) contain stipulation, inter-alia, for Letter of Credit (LC), the terms and conditions settled by the parties indicating the event on which such LC can be encashed. It is the contention of the Appellant (Distribution Licensee - Procurer) that the period specified in the Regulations for rebate to be availed by payment of the bill for supply of electricity should also be treated as the period within which such payment can be legitimately insisted upon, the end of the said period being "due date" prior to which the LC cannot be invoked. The PPA which was entered upon between the parties herein carries a stipulation that the payment of the periodic bill (raised on Appeal No. 26 of 2018 & IA No. 131 of 2018 Page 2 of 24 month-to-month basis) is to be made by the last bank working day of the month in which it is raised, described as the "due date". It is also the contention of the Appellant that this stipulation (as to due date) runs contrary to the Tariff Regulations providing for the incentive (rebate) for timely payment (within 30 days), and the liability for late payment surcharge (LPSC) and, consequently, the PPA will have to be enforced only after being aligned and brought in line with letter and spirit of the Regulations.

1. The present Appeal No. 340 of 2016 has been preferred by M/s. Azure Sunrise Private Limited (Appellant) against the Impugned Order Dated 14th December, 2016 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter the "State Commission") in Petition No. 19/ 2016 (hereinafter the "Petition"), wherein the State Commission has arbitrarily and unjustifiably retrospectively reduced the approved extension of time of 137 days granted by the distribution licensee, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter the "CESCOM") to only 25 days, after more than 12 months of such extension being granted and acted upon by both the parties and has further recorded that the necessary consequences as per the terms of the PPA (as defined hereinafter) shall follow.

1. The Appellant Company was established to execute what is known as Chennai Metro Rail Project ("CMRP"). On 15.02.2011, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") was entered into between the Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu and Chennai Metro Rail Limited ("CMRL"), the Appellant herein, inter-alia, for the purposes of sharing the financial burden of setting up of CMRP, the objective whereof concededly was to provide reliable, faster, economical and eco- friendly public transport services in the city of Chennai, the project undertaken being similar to the projects that have come up in different metro-cities of India including Delhi and Bangalore.

1. The present appeal has been filed by Indian Captive Power Producers Association (ICPPA) (Appellant) against the daily order dated 01.02.2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Respondent Commission") in Petition No. 1672 of 2017, preferred by the Appellant. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant is seeking necessary directions for expediting the proceedings in Petition No. 1672 of 2017 preferred by the Appellant. Under the aforesaid Petition, the Appellant is seeking amendment of the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 ("GERC OA Regulations, 2011") as detailed therein. However, even after a lapse of more than 2 years, the Respondent Commission has failed to hear the Petition on merits, thereby leading to a delay in deciding the said case.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Swasti Power Limited ("Appellant") under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Electricity Act"), challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission's ("State Commission / Respondent No.1") Order dated 21.10.2015 in Petition No. 08 of 2015 ("Impugned Order") whereby the State Commission despite coming to the conclusion that the Respondents are in breach of their obligations towards construction of 220/33KV sub-station at Ghansali or in strengthening/augmentation of the existing 33KV evacuation system had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant while holding that there is no specific condition under the Power Wheeling Agreement dated 30.09.2005 and Power Purchase Agreement dated 03.07.2009 executed between the parties, under which the Appellant could be compensated for the loss of generation due to inactions of the Respondent No. 2 & 3.

2. The facts, which led to filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:

Admittedly, the 2nd Respondent is the HT consumer of electricity having Contract Demand of 3500 KVA with the Appellant. It entered into an agreement on 10.10.2011 with the Appellant-Discom for supply of power in terms of above Contract of Demand.

3. Apparently, consumer company made an application for energy drawl from open access through IEX and it was considered as short term open access (STOA) consumer. Admittedly, in terms of Regulation 26(vii) of the RERC (Terms and conditions for Open access) Regulations 2016 (for short "Regulations of 2016"), every short term open access consumer shall provide the injection/drawl schedule (block- wise maximum power) for inter-State transactions every day to SLDC, RDPPC and the Distribution Licensee before 10:00 am of the day 3 preceding the day of drawl/injection as per the open access capacity sanctioned.

1. By this appeal, challenge has been brought to order dated 04.03.2015 of first Respondent i.e. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter variously referred to as "WBERC" or "State Commission") in case No. TP-55/13-14 thereby determining Multi Year Tariff (MYT) for the period beginning with financial year (FY) 2014-15 upto FY 2016-17 by which the appellant, representing a set of industrial consumers, claims to be adversely affected. The grievances of the Appellant relate to alleged inherent inconsistency in the approach on account of "excessive allowance of power purchase cost"; non-compliance of Tariff Regulations in matter relating to "Provisional Determination of Project Cost" of specific units; incorrect treatment of "non-tariff income"; and, erroneous "recurring" allowance of "interest on working capital loan" provided by Government of West Bengal without scrutiny as to delay in repayment.

Mr. Amit Kapur Ms. Poonam Verma Mr. Saunak Kumar Mr. Rajguru Mr. Sidhant Kaushik Ms. Aparajita Upadhyay Ms. Adhishree Chakraborty Ms. Sakshi Kapoor Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ms. Abiha Zaidi for R-2 Order PER HON'BLE MR. S. D. DUBEY, TECHNICAL MEMBER IA No. 324 of 2020

1. The dismissal of the claim brought before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of Rs. 76,61,606/- on account of "deemed generation" against the Respondent Discom, registered as case No. HERC/PRO-69 of 2017 "for want of prosecution" by order dated 16.01.2019, followed by dismissal of the prayer for Appeal No. 75 of 2020 Page 2 of 6 restoration of the said case by order dated 25.04.2019, has led to the present appeal being instituted before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on all sides and have gone through the record. We are of the view that the appeal must be allowed. We set out our reasons hereinafter.

1. Against the backdrop of validity of certain acts of the third Respondent (Procurer) encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee and terminating the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) being questioned by the Appellant (Developer), the issues of the propriety of the approach of Appeal No. 319 of 2019 & IA Nos. 1565, 1566 & 1915 of 2019 Page 2 of 37 the first Respondent - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "UPERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission") - to the process of adjudication and the general expectation of its neutrality particularly at the stage of an appellate scrutiny of its decision by this Tribunal have come up for consideration in this appeal.

1. The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3

In terms of guidelines issued by Ministry of Power (MoP) for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees, on 18.05.2009, Respondent No.3- MSEDCL issued a request for proposal for procurement of 2000 MW (+30%-20%) for a period of 25 years on long term basis. In that process, the following bidders were qualified:

i. Emco Energy Ltd. ( 200 MW @2.879 Rs/kWh) ii. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Amravati) ( 1200 MW @ 3.260 Rs/kWh) iii. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd (1200 MW @ 3.280 Rs/kWh) iv. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Nashik) (950 MW @ 3.450 Rs/kWh v. Wardha Power Company Ltd. (675 MW @ 3.620 Rs/kWh)

1. These two matters have come up against almost identical backdrop of proceedings recorded by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "TNERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission"), the Appellant in first captioned appeal being Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, which was the petitioner in D.R.P. No. 19 of 2012, the second captioned appeal having been instituted by Samalpatti Power Company Private Limited, petitioner in D.R.P. No. 16 of 2012.

2. It appears that the said two petitions had come up for consideration before the State Commission around the same point of time, the hearing having been concluded, the orders having been reserved by similar proceedings recorded on 21.12.2018. Noticeably at that stage, the State Commission was functional in full strength with the Chairman and two Members in position. Before orders could be passed in either of the said matters, one of the members (Mr. G. Rajagopal) Appeal No. 127 of 2019 and Appeal No. 146 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 demitted office in January, 2019. Meanwhile, certain written submissions had been placed on record by the parties which were respondents before the State Commission (respondents in these appeals as well). Along with the said written submissions, certain documents were submitted to which exception was taken by the appellants primarily on the ground that it was new material, taking on board the same amounting to (as per their contention) amendment of the pleadings, it being statedly impermissible at the stage at which it had been tendered for record. Since the Registry of the Commission seems to have returned such material upon objections being taken, the respondents herein were constrained to file applications - i.e. IA No. 1 of 2019 in the first captioned matter and IA No. 2 of 2019 in the other matter.

1. This Appeal is filed by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited challenging the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APERC/Commission").

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Appeal are as under:

(i) 2nd Respondent - M/s SNJ Sugars & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

is a sugar plant with co-generation power plant having capacity of 20 MW. It uses bagasse as a fuel for power generation. It approached the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (known as "NEDCAP") for setting up of power plant and accordingly it got the approval on 07.04.2000.

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

STEPHEN GLOVER: No one should doubt that the BBC has decided to deprive nearly four million pensioner households of a free TV licence only after much agonising.

Former Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood lost his battle with cancer last November and was remembered at a memorial service at Westminster Abbey this afternoon.

Sally-Anne Huang, 47, will take the reins as the next high master of the west London private school which boasts a ream of notable alumni including former Prime Minister Spencer Compton.

The former chancellor has told friends he is well placed to replace Christine Lagarde, who was picked as head of the European Central Bank this week.

The former chancellor was spotted walking through the grounds before taking up his position in Centre Court's Royal Box, where he was seen chatting with former Bank of England governor Mervyn King.

Former Chancellor and London Evening Standard editor George Osborne, 48, and his author wife Frances, 50, are getting divorced after 21 years of marriage, they announced in a statement today.

The abrupt departure of Sir Kim Darroch following his extraordinary spat with Donald Trump has left a vacancy in the Foreign Office's most prominent overseas post.

The post was vacated last month when France's Christine Lagarde stepped down following her appointment as the next head of the European Central Bank.

The number of non-doms, people who are not legally domiciled in the UK but enjoy tax advantages, fell from 98,500 to 78,300 last year, a record low. The tax they contributed also dropped by £2billion.

The latest employment figures have defied the bleak predictions made three years ago by former chancellor George Osborne as one million jobs have been created across the economy.

Almost 4,000 members of the Armed Forces pension scheme breached their annual allowance in 2017-18. This puts them at risk of five or six-figure tax bills under changes introduced in 2016.

Ms Mordaunt, who lasted only 85 days in her 'dream job' as Defence Secretary before being fired by Mr Johnson on his first day as Prime Minister, was said by friends to be 'very chipper' after the dinner.