Petition with CERC (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Transmission License and other related matters) Regulations to NERGS-I Power Transmission Limited – EQ

Summary:

—

**Case Background:**
The petitioner, **NERGS-I Power Transmission Limited (NREGSPTL)** , filed a petition seeking a transmission license from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The license was required to develop and operate an Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS) under the “North Eastern Region Generation Scheme-I (NERGS-I)” project.

**Key Development & Petitioner’s Position:**
During the hearing, NREGSPTL’s counsel stated that the scope of the original petition had fundamentally changed due to subsequent events (the project being scrapped). The petitioner argued that the current petition had become **infructuous** (without legal effect) because it did not specifically seek compensation from the respondent, **Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL)**.

Consequently, NREGSPTL filed **IA No. 35/2026** under **Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC**, requesting:
– Permission to withdraw the current petition.
– Liberty to file a fresh petition specifically seeking compensation from CTUIL.

**Respondents’ Objections (CTUIL & APDCL):**
– **APDCL** noted that the petitioner had previously agreed to cost reimbursement and meetings. APDCL objected to the withdrawal after substantial hearing on merits.
– **CTUIL** strongly opposed the withdrawal, arguing:
– The petition was filed under mandatory statutory provisions (Sections 14, 15, 79(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, and Transmission Licence Regulations, 2024).
– License proceedings are not like civil suits; they involve public interest, so the petitioner cannot unilaterally abandon the process.
– Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC is not applicable as a right before CERC.
– The petitioner had already benefited from the bidding process; withdrawal would frustrate regulatory proceedings and affect public interest.

**Petitioner’s Rebuttal & Alternative Suggestions:**
– NREGSPTL clarified it was not unwilling to proceed with the project initially.
– Suggested that if the Commission allowed, the current petition could be **converted into a claim petition**.
– Alternatively, sought permission to file a reply on the merits of its compensation claims.
– Requested continuation of interim directions (previously granted on 23.9.2025).

**Respondents’ Conditional Suggestion (in the alternative):**
If the Commission disposed of the petition as infructuous and granted liberty to file a fresh compensation petition, the respondents requested that their rights to rely on all previous pleadings, proceedings, and admissions made by the petitioner in the current matter be explicitly reserved.

**Commission’s Directions:**
1. Permitted all parties to file **written submissions within three days**, with copies exchanged.
2. Ordered that **interim directions issued on 23.9.2025 shall continue** until the final outcome of the present petition.
3. **Reserved the matter for order** (judgment pending).

—

For more information please see below link: