The Appellant is held entitled to the washing cost of coal, the transportation from the mine site via washing of coal to the project site inclusive of cost of road transportation for the period where it was necessary. No.1562/2017 in the aforesaid Civil Appeal praying for a direction to the State Commission to determine the amount payable by the respondent as per the aforesaid reported judgment of 05.10.2017 and grant the respondent reasonable time to make payment. This being so, when PCV is spoken of in the formula, it makes it clear that what is referred to is the weighted average gross calorific value of coal as received at the project site on actuals thereof, and that includes total moisture content that is measured at the project site. The aforesaid would, thus, show that vide order dated 07.08.2019 the Court made it abundantly clear that the judgment should be followed in letter and spirit and disposed of the Contempt Petitions with a direction to pay the amount as a result of the order within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The next development to be noted is that the respondent filed a subsequent Petition No.25/2019 under Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 of the Electricity Act on 24.12.2019 seeking approval of the Regulatory Commission for recovery of the amount paid to the appellant in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 07.08.2019 from the consumers by proportionately increasing the retail supply tariff of various categories of the consumers.
In effect, this Court granted an imprimatur to the calculations of the outstanding dues as understood by the appellant as on 09.03.2021 and directed the respondent to make payment of the same in two equated installments on or before 31.03.2021 and 31.05.2021. It is this aspect, which has been adjudicated by the impugned order dated 06.04.2022, which opined that the petition filed by the respondent was maintainable as they amounted to fresh disputes as per the order dated 09.03.2021. It is paras 13 and 14 of this order, which according to the respondent, gave cause to the respondent to move a petition before the Commission, which has resulted in passing the impugned order. We have examined the aforesaid plea and it is our view that insofar as the liabilities of the respondents to the appellants arising from the judgment are concerned, the matter stands closed in terms of our judgment dated 05.10.2017 and orders passed on the applications from time to time. In our view, it will be for the authority to consider whether any of the claims sought to be preferred by the respondents can really be open to any fresh adjudication in view of the judgment rendered by us and the orders passed by us referred to aforesaid. What was sought to be raised was really in the nature of fresh dispute and “ if that be the position ” we have not precluded the respondents from raising “ all future disputes ” as we were concerned with the adjudication of certain aspects. The submission of the respondent was that what had been done was in pursuance to the liberty granted and all that the Commission had opined was that it would examine the issue and the judgment of this Court would not foreclose the examination in view of the order dated 09.03.2021 passed in Second Contempt Petition. The details of the coal rejects were not provided resulting in higher washing charges and not taking into account the income from the disposal of the coal rejects. The liberty granted by the order dated 09.03.2021 cannot be construed to seek refund of the amount paid under the orders passed by this Court from time to time. It was submitted that the policy for handling and disposal of washery rejects stands changed from 2021 and the concept of coal being washed at an approved washery operator’s site thereafter being shifted to the site and losses being caused, etc., are no more part of the manner of implementation of the contract and, thus, would not arise. We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order, innocuous as it may seem, is not sustainable and this is yet another endeavour of the respondent to wriggle out of its obligation under the judgmen t dated 05.10.2017, repeatedly explained by various orders. The Bills of cost have been filed by both the appellants, Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited. [Sudhanshu Dhulia]……………….. J.
