Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Seth Bankatlal Maloo (S.B.M.) Industries Pvt. Ltd., a paper manufacturing company, was sanctioned a load of 800 KVA as a continuous process industry on 22.08.1995 by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL). It enjoyed uninterrupted power supply until 30.06.2009. On 01.07.2009, the supply was interrupted due to load shedding. The petitioner made representations claiming entitlement to continuous supply as a recognized continuous process industry, but the respondents did not restore uninterrupted supply. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No. 132 of 2009. The Ombudsman, by order dated 13.01.2010, held that the petitioner was not on an express feeder and therefore not entitled to continuous supply, but directed refund of excess charges recovered by treating it as on an express feeder. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter finally at the admission stage. The court noted that the facts were not in dispute. The petitioner argued that its status as a continuous process industry was sanctioned in 1995 and the subsequent introduction of the concept of express feeder could not change that status. The respondents contended that as per the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) Regulations, only industries on express feeders are entitled to uninterrupted supply. The court examined the Load Sanction Order and the relevant regulations. It held that the right to continuous supply is not absolute and depends on the type of feeder. Since the petitioner was not connected to an express feeder, it could not claim uninterrupted supply. The court also upheld the Ombudsman's direction for refund of excess charges. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Ombudsman's order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Continuous Process Industry - Express Feeder - The petitioner, a continuous process industry sanctioned in 1995, was denied uninterrupted supply from 01.07.2009 due to load shedding. The Electricity Ombudsman held that since the industry was not on an express feeder, it was not entitled to continuous supply. The High Court upheld this, ruling that the right to continuous supply is contingent on being connected to an express feeder as per MERC Regulations, and the earlier sanction does not confer a vested right to uninterrupted supply irrespective of feeder type. (Paras 2-10) B) Electricity Law - Refund of Excess Charges - The Ombudsman directed refund of excess charges recovered by treating the petitioner as on an express feeder. The High Court affirmed this direction, as the petitioner was not on an express feeder and thus not liable for higher tariff. (Paras 2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a continuous process industry sanctioned before the introduction of the concept of 'express feeder' is entitled to uninterrupted power supply even if not connected to an express feeder.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Order of Electricity Ombudsman dated 13.01.2010 confirmed. Petitioner not entitled to continuous supply as not on express feeder, but entitled to refund of excess charges.
Law Points
- Continuous process industry
- Express feeder
- Uninterrupted power supply
- Electricity Ombudsman
- Load sanction order
- Tariff
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) Regulations
