Admitting the Tata Power writ petition filed on January 8 challenging the interim order of MERC on BSES's petition on the payment of standby charges, a division bench comprising justice AP Shah and justice AM Khanwilkar asked the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit by January 22. The division bench, which has stayed MERC proceedings on BSES petition, has slated final hearing on Tata Power petition on January 25.

MSEB, whose financial condition is quite `precarious', strongly pleaded that it should be permitted to withdraw Rs 30 crore deposited by the BSES in a special account opened by MERC after its interim order on December 18 last year. MSEB counsel Shyam Diwan claimed that it was at the receiving end as in view of the dispute between Tata Power and BSES, it has yet to receive nearly Rs 244 crore towards its share of standby charges. Earlier, Tata Power counsel Ibrahim Chhagla argued that the finality on the issue of payment of standby charges had been achieved after the state government through its order March 22, 2000 asked BSES to make the necessary payment to Tata Power. The company alleged that BSES did not pay the due amount despite its pleas were rejected subsequently for three times by the state government.

Tata Power argued that "a dispute and difference which has already been adjudicated upon and which has already been decided, cannot be the subject matter of the function of the MERC under section 22 (2) (n) of the CERC Act, 1998." The fact that the standby charges for the 275 mva were payable by BSES to MSEB as per the March 22, 2000 order was accepted even by the board. Tata Power also opposed the state government's decision through an order of December 5 to keep the March 22, 200 order in abeyance as the issue of sharing standby charges had been referred by BSES to MERC.

Tata Power recalled that it had approached the MERC immediately after the March 22, 2000 order of state government to seek its opinion on the payment of standby charges when the latter had expressed its inability to decide upon the issue on the grounds that the state government had the powers in this regard. The company also added that it had expressed the need for tariff revision.

However, BSES counsel KS Cooper strongly opposed the admission of Tata Power petition on the grounds that MERC has yet to decide upon its petition. The company argued that it had opposed the state government's March 22, 2000 order as it had dealt with tariff and not other issues raised by it.

BSES pointed out that it had deposited Rs 30 crore of the Rs 54 crore payable as per the MERC's interim order to Tata Power towards standby charges.

At this point of time, Tata Power claimed that BSES would have to pay Rs 113 crore as per the MERC interim order and told the court that BSES had sought relief from the payment of Rs 54 core through a review petition filed before MERC. The division bench wanted to know whether BSES would contribute the balance Rs 24 crore to the MERC account. However, BSES expressed its inability to do so.