Case Note & Summary
By way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenged an order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) in favour of M/s. Viraj Profile Ltd., an electricity consumer. The dispute concerned revision of Contract Demand and reduction in Open Access capacity. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing stainless steel with open access capacity 4550 KVA and MSEDCL contract demand 500 KVA, had earlier obtained Medium Term Open Access permission in 2014-15. On 30.12.2014, the respondent applied for MTOA permission for quantum of 4550 KVA and reduction in Contract Demand from 5000 KVA to 500 KVA. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEDCL approved the application on 20.05.2015, sanctioning Open Access of 4500 KVA and retention of Contract Demand of 500 KVA. Subsequently, on 21.09.2016, the respondent applied to the Superintendent Engineer, MSEDCL, Palghar for revision of Contract Demand from 500 KVA to 2000 KVA and reduction of Open Access capacity from 4500 KVA to 3000 KVA, with a copy endorsed to the Chief Engineer (Commercial). The Superintendent Engineer sanctioned the enhancement of contract demand to 2000 KVA and consequent reduction in Open Access on 21.10.2016. Later, on 07.02.2017, the respondent applied to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) for revision in Contract Demand and reduction in Open Access capacity as sanctioned by the Superintendent Engineer. On 11.05.2017, the Chief Engineer (Commercial) allowed revision of Contract Demand from 4000 KVA to 3000 KVA, but made it effective only from May 2017, though the revision was already effected from 21.10.2016. Aggrieved by the prospective effect, the respondent filed a grievance before the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), which was dismissed on 28.06.2018. The respondent then approached the CGRF, which allowed the complaint on 29.08.2018, directing MSEDCL to implement the reduction/revision of open access and enhancement/revision of contract demand retrospectively with effect from the billing month of November 2016 and to refund the excess amount recovered along with interest at the RBI rate. MSEDCL contended that the CGRF lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because disputes relating to reduction in Open Access capacity exclusively vest in the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) under the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016, particularly Regulation 32. According to MSEDCL, the Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees (Period for Giving Supply and Determination of Compensation) Regulations, 2014 only provide timelines for reduction or sanction of load under Regulation 4.14, not substantive adjudication of Open Access quantum disputes. MSEDCL further argued that the nodal agency for seeking reduction in Open Access capacity is the Chief Engineer (Commercial), and the respondent's application to the Superintendent Engineer was contrary to the prescribed procedure under Regulation 8 of the 2016 Regulations. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Ors. to support that all consumer-licensee disputes must go to MERC. The excerpted judgment text sets out these contentions but ends before any final reasoning or operative direction. Therefore, the Court's analysis and final decision cannot be ascertained from the provided material; the case was reserved on 03.01.2023 and pronounced on 28.11.2023.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum - Disputes concerning reduction in Open Access capacity - MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 32 - Petitioner contended that the CGRF lacked jurisdiction because Regulation 32 provides that any dispute under these Regulations shall be adjudicated upon by the Commission, i.e., MERC, and therefore the CGRF order dated 29.08.2018 was without jurisdiction - The dispute pertained to retrospective reduction of Open Access capacity and enhancement of Contract Demand, which falls under the 2016 Regulations and not under the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Regulations, 2006 (Paras 6, 7(ii)). B) Electricity Law - Application to Nodal Agency - Requirement for MTOA applications - MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 8 - Petitioner argued that the nodal agency for seeking reduction in Open Access capacity is the Chief Engineer (Commercial), as notified by MSEDCL, and not the Superintending Engineer (Palghar) to whom the respondent made the application - Regulation 8 requires that an application for Open Access shall be made in the prescribed form to the Nodal Agency, which is the Distribution Licensee specifying the Nodal Officer; the respondent's application to the Superintending Engineer was therefore invalid and outside the prescribed procedure (Paras 6, 6.1(vi), 7(iii)). C) Electricity Law - Standards of Performance - Applicability to revision of Contract Demand - MERC (Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees (Period for Giving Supply and Determination of Compensation)) Regulations, 2014, Regulation 4.14 - Petitioner submitted that Regulation 4.14 only prescribes the timeline for reduction or sanction of load and does not govern disputes over Open Access quantum or capacity; the 2016 Distribution Open Access Regulations exclusively apply to such disputes - The CGRF's reliance on the 2014 SoP Regulations was misplaced because the substantive adjudication of Open Access capacity reduction lies with MERC (Paras 6, 7(ii)). D) Electricity Law - Definition of Grievance under Consumer Grievance Redressal Regulations - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum's purview - MERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, Regulation 2.1(c) - Petitioner contended that a grievance under Regulation 2.1(c) covers only faults or inadequacies in quality, nature and manner of performance by the Distribution Licensee in pursuance of licence, contract, agreement, Electricity Supply Code, or Standards of Performance, and does not include disputes about Open Access capacity reduction - Since the respondent's complaint did not fit this definition, the IGRC and CGRF proceedings were impermissible in law (Paras 6.1(i), 7(iv)). E) Electricity Law - Precedent on Regulatory Commission Jurisdiction - All consumer-licensee disputes referred to MERC - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 2(47) - Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. and Ors. to argue that all disputes between a consumer and Distribution Licensee must be referred to the Commission, i.e., MERC, which has all powers to determine disputes and ensure compliance with rules and regulations - This was advanced to support the argument that the CGRF's order must be quashed for want of jurisdiction (Paras 7(vi), 7(vii)). F) Electricity Law - Applicability of Subsequent Amendment - MERC (Distribution Open Access) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2019 - Petitioner submitted that the procedure notified for Distribution of Open Access capacity relied upon by the respondent was issued after the 2019 Amendment, and thus not applicable to the respondent's application made in 2016 - The 2016 Regulations were the applicable legal framework for the application and dispute (Para 7(v)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum had jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding reduction in Open Access capacity and retrospective revision of Contract Demand, or whether such dispute fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016.
Final Decision
The final decision and operative directions are not included in the provided excerpt; the text ends with petitioner's submissions referencing a prior High Court judgment.
Law Points
- Disputes relating to reduction in Open Access capacity are within MERC's jurisdiction under MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations
- 2016 Regulation 32
- Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction over Open Access capacity disputes
- MTOA applications must be made to Nodal Agency as per Regulation 8
- Standards of Performance Regulations
- 2014 only prescribe timelines
- not substantive adjudication
- Supreme Court in MERC v. Reliance Energy held all consumer-licensee disputes must go to MERC
