Review Petition of the CERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2023 for Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd – EQ
Summary:
—
## ⚖️ **Case Overview**
**Issuing Authority:** Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), New Delhi
**Case Title:** *Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (POWERGRID) vs Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited (BSPHCL) & Others*
**Petition Type:** Review Petition under **Section 94(1)(f)** of the *Electricity Act, 2003* read with **Regulation 52** of the *CERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2023*
**Case Reference:** Review Petition No. 16/RP/2025 in 9/TT/2023
**Interlocutory Application:** I.A. No. 96/2025 (for condonation of delay)
**Date of Hearing:** 14 October 2025
**Next Hearing Date:** 25 November 2025
**Coram:**
* Shri Jishnu Barua, Chairperson
* Shri Ramesh Babu V., Member
**Parties Present:**
* *For Petitioner (POWERGRID):* Ms. Swapna Seshadri, Shri Utkarsh Singh, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Tanishka Goswami
* *For Respondent (BSPHCL):* Ms. Rohini Prasad, Ms. Ashika Ranjan
—
## 🧾 **Background and Context**
The petition was filed by **Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL)** seeking **review of CERC’s order dated 13 June 2025** in **Petition No. 9/TT/2023**, which dealt with the **approval of transmission tariff and time extension claims** for certain transmission assets, particularly **Asset-XI** of an inter-State transmission system project.
The review petition also included an **Interlocutory Application (IA No. 96/2025)** requesting **condonation of delay** in filing the review.
—
## ⚙️ **Key Submissions by PGCIL**
1. **Incorrect Subsuming of Delays under MoP’s Circular:**
The counsel argued that CERC, in its **order of 13.6.2025**, **wrongly subsumed all delays before 1.10.2020** (including the **Revised Scheduled COD**) of *Asset-XI* under the **Ministry of Power’s Circular dated 27.07.2020**.
* The circular allowed a **5-month Force Majeure extension** recognizing the disruption caused by the **first COVID-19 wave**.
* However, PGCIL contended that the **Commission’s interpretation incorrectly merged unrelated delays** with COVID-19 impacts.
2. **Non-consideration of 180-day Shutdown Period:**
* CERC, in **para 73** of its earlier order, **did not approve a 180-day shutdown** period claimed by PGCIL.
* The rejection was due to the **absence of documentary proof** (OCC meeting minutes or records).
* PGCIL requested permission to **now place the relevant documents and OCC minutes on record**, to justify the shutdown period.
—
## 📄 **Commission’s Directions**
After hearing both sides, the Commission issued the following directions:
1. **Notice to Respondents:**
* Formal notice to be issued to all respondent utilities (including BSPHCL and others).
2. **Filing of Replies:**
* Respondents must **file their replies within two weeks**, serving copies to the petitioner.
3. **Filing of Rejoinder:**
* The petitioner (PGCIL) may file **rejoinders within two weeks** thereafter.
4. **Next Listing:**
* The matter is scheduled for **hearing on 25 November 2025**.
—
For more information please see below link:
