Reading Time: 2 minutes
The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) heard the petition, along with related interim applications, on 20th March 2025. The case was filed by Continuum Green Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. (CGEIPL) against Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (UGVCL). The petition challenged UGVCL’s decision to impose an additional surcharge on Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited (TMPVL), which sources power from Continuum Green Energy.
The dispute arose from UGVCL’s letters dated 22nd February 2022 and 29th November 2022, demanding additional surcharge payments from Tata Motors for the period from April 2014 to December 2021. Tata Motors claimed that they were exempt from paying this surcharge under Gujarat’s Wind Power Policy of 2007 and earlier GERC orders, including Order No. 1 of 2010 and 02 of 2012. TMPVL argued that UGVCL did not levy any such surcharge until January 2022 and that earlier bills confirmed no surcharge was applicable because their power was sourced from renewable energy.
TMPVL sought a stay on UGVCL’s demand and asked the Commission to restrain UGVCL from taking coercive action, including disconnection of power supply. TMPVL also requested to be impleaded as a party in the main petition filed by CGEIPL, since the surcharge would directly impact them as consumers.
Continuum Green Energy, which supplies power to TMPVL, argued that the additional surcharge was wrongly levied since it should not apply to renewable energy purchases under the existing regulatory framework. They highlighted GERC’s past tariff orders, specifically the 2014 order in Petition No. 1302 of 2013, which exempted consumers sourcing power from their captive plants or renewable energy generators from the additional surcharge.
UGVCL, represented by its advocate, contended that TMPVL should have filed its petition and that CGEIPL had no direct standing in the matter. UGVCL stated that their demands were in line with Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows distribution companies to recover fixed costs through additional surcharges. They argued that the additional surcharge applies to any open-access consumer purchasing power from a third party, including renewable energy sources.
The Commission noted that UGVCL issued bills demanding payment for past periods only recently, despite the surcharge allegedly being applicable years earlier. TMPVL argued that such retrospective billing was arbitrary and not permissible under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, which limits recovery of dues older than two years unless they were continuously shown as recoverable.
During the hearing, TMPVL’s legal team cited Supreme Court rulings to support their case against arbitrary disconnection and retrospective recovery. UGVCL maintained that no disconnection notice was issued and that they were following the law in their demand for payment.
The Commission allowed both parties to file written submissions on the issues of impleadment and objections. The interim application seeking urgent listing was disposed of as the matter had already been heard. The next date of the hearing will be announced separately.
