Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, which directed the petitioner to refund Service Line Charges (SLC) and Service Connection Charges (SCC) recovered from respondent no.1, a consumer. The consumer had initially contracted for 9 MVA supply, which was gradually increased to 100 MVA, and paid Rs. 65 lakhs towards SLC and SCC in installments between 1996 and 1998. Subsequently, the consumer reduced its contract demand to 56 MVA by 2002. In 2002, the consumer sought restoration of contract demand to 90 MVA, stating that no fresh SLC or SCC should be charged. The petitioner demanded Rs. 6.9 lakhs towards SCC and Rs. 221 lakhs towards SLC. The consumer approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which dismissed the complaint, and then the Ombudsman, who allowed the complaint and directed refund of the amounts paid under protest. The High Court considered whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction and whether the demand for fresh charges was valid. The court held that the Ombudsman had jurisdiction under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the consumer's undertaking in a PIL to pay disputed amounts did not create an estoppel. On merits, the court found that the charges paid were for enhancement of contract demand, and upon reduction, the consumer was not entitled to refund. However, upon restoration to a previously contracted level, the petitioner could not demand fresh charges as the infrastructure already existed. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Ombudsman's order.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Jurisdiction of Ombudsman - Section 42(6) of Electricity Act, 2003 - The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding refund of charges even if the consumer had given an undertaking to pay disputed amounts in a PIL, as the undertaking did not create an estoppel against the consumer's right to challenge the demand. (Paras 5-6) B) Electricity Law - Service Line Charges and Service Connection Charges - Refund - The charges paid for enhancement of contract demand are not refundable upon reduction, but upon restoration to the same level, fresh charges cannot be demanded as the infrastructure already exists. (Paras 7-9) C) Electricity Law - Interpretation of Agreements - Clause 4.1 of Supply Agreement - The agreement does not provide for refund of SLC/SCC upon reduction of contract demand, but also does not permit fresh charges upon restoration to a previously contracted level. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Electricity Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain the consumer's complaint regarding refund of SLC and SCC, and whether the petitioner could demand fresh SLC and SCC upon restoration of contract demand.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Electricity Ombudsman dated 29.02.2008 directing the petitioner to refund the SLC and SCC recovered from respondent no.1.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Electricity Ombudsman
- Refund of Service Line Charges and Service Connection Charges
- Restoration of contract demand
- Estoppel by undertaking
- Interpretation of supply agreements
