The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has allowed Jindal Steel and Power to sell surplus power from its two captive plants — Raigarh and Dongamahua — to consumers at the OP Jindal Industrial Park in Chhattisgarh.

The dispute is over the tariff that Jindal Steel and Power may charge. The tariff was agreed to be the ‘average cost of supply’ but the dispute was over whether it ought to include the surplus power supplied.

APTEL Chairperson Justice Ramesh Ranganadhan and technical member Sandesh Kumar Sharma noted in their verdict that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Jindal Steel and Power, and against the respondents (Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Raighar Ispat Udyog Sangh, an association of companies with units in OP Jindal Industrial Park).

The impugned order, dated November 28, 2022, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission has been stayed. Jindal Steel and Power is now allowed to charge the determined tariff of ₹5.44 per unit as a provisional tariff, subject to the outcome of the main appeals, the verdict said.

No separate censor for nonfilm content

A ‘public interest litigation’ filed against the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, seeking a regulatory body to review and censor non-film content released on the internet, was rejected by the Delhi High Court.

Also read
When is a bank guarantee not enforceable?

Axis Bank fails to enforce guarantee from BoB

How ITC’s snipper snapped a model’s career 

The dispute goes back to 2001 when GAIL signed a gas supply contract with IPCL

SC observes GAIL’s action against IPCL discriminatory, arbitrary 

While agreeing that the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Cinematograph Act, 1952, do not cover content released on the internet, the high court said that the setting up of a regulatory or censor board would require legislative action and the judiciary had no role in it.

The high court told the petitioner that Rule 3 and Rule 4 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021, specify the content that ‘intermediaries’ and ‘social media intermediaries’ are required to prohibit on their platforms.

On this ground, the court disagreed with the petitioner that there was no regulatory mechanism for a review of non-film songs and other content released on the internet.