GRIDCO Battles GMR Kamalanga Over ₹280 Crore Power Dues at Supreme Court
Overview
Odisha's GRIDCO is appealing to the Supreme Court against an Appellate Tribunal for Electricity order demanding approximately ₹280 crore in fixed capacity charges and surcharges. The dispute involves GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd and centers on payment for power declared available but not supplied between April 2015 and March 2017, potentially impacting sector-wide payment structures.
GRIDCO Challenges ₹280 Crore Power Dues in Supreme Court
GRIDCO Ltd has initiated a legal battle at the Supreme Court, contesting an order from the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that mandates payment of ₹280 crore to GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. The dues cover fixed capacity charges and a delayed payment surcharge for power transactions between April 2015 and March 2017.
The Core Dispute
GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd sought payment for fixed or capacity charges tied to declared power availability during the disputed fiscal periods of FY16 and FY17. GRIDCO, however, argues it should not bear costs for nearly 515 million units of electricity that were neither scheduled nor supplied. The Odisha government-owned power trader contends that the APTEL ruling fundamentally misinterprets the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed between the two entities.
GRIDCO's Legal Stance
The company's appeal asserts that capacity charges are contractually linked to power that is actually scheduled and drawn by the buyer, not merely on the generator's declared availability. GRIDCO has already remitted approximately ₹100 crore under protest, while disputing its liability for the remainder of the claimed amount. This legal challenge aims to clarify contractual obligations regarding power availability versus actual supply in the sector.
Tribunal's Ruling and Sector Implications
The APTEL order, which dismissed GRIDCO's previous appeals and upheld earlier Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) directives, stated that fixed or capacity charges must be computed based on the generator's declared capacity as per CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014. The tribunal further ruled that statutory regulations supersede contractual clauses in such inconsistencies. This stance suggests generators are entitled to recover charges for making power available, irrespective of its consumption. The Supreme Court's decision is anticipated to set a significant precedent, potentially influencing numerous similar disputes across the Indian power sector and impacting how tariff settlements and legacy payment issues are resolved.
