Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Nagpur, and a corrigendum dated 26.03.2010. The CGRF had allowed the grievance of M/s. Shree Steel Casting Private Limited (respondent no.1), directing MSEDCL to treat respondent no.1 as an HTI non-continuous consumer and revise all energy bills from 01.06.2008. Respondent no.1's factory was situated in MIDC Hingna, Nagpur, and was an HT consumer connected on 33 KV with a connected load of 3477 KW and contract demand of 3000 KV, connected since 05.06.1995. The supply was governed by tariff orders issued by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). In a meeting dated 21.03.2009, MSEDCL resolved that a consumer connected on an express feeder could opt for non-continuous tariff only with the consent of all consumers on that feeder. Despite being connected to an express feeder, respondent no.1 filed a grievance before the CGRF under the MERC Regulation 2006, seeking revision of energy bills from 01.06.2008 by applying non-express feeder tariff. MSEDCL filed a reply opposing the grievance. The CGRF passed the impugned order relying on the definition of 'Dedicated Distribution Facilities' under the MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulation, 2005, and also considered that another consumer was supplied from the same feeder and that the premises were not contiguous. The High Court held that the CGRF's interpretation was erroneous because the feeder was not a dedicated facility as it supplied more than one consumer. The court found that the CGRF had no jurisdiction to direct revision of bills from 01.06.2008, as the tariff order required consent of all consumers for opting non-continuous tariff. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the CGRF's order and corrigendum, and ruled in favor of MSEDCL.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Consumer Classification - Dedicated Distribution Facilities - MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulation, 2005 - The CGRF erred in relying on the definition of 'Dedicated Distribution Facilities' to classify the respondent as a non-continuous consumer, as the feeder in question supplied more than one consumer and was not a dedicated facility. The court held that the CGRF's order was based on a misinterpretation of the regulation and the tariff order. (Paras 1-3) B) Electricity Law - Tariff Orders - Express Feeder - Non-Continuous Consumer - MERC Tariff Orders - The respondent, being an HT consumer connected on 33 KV express feeder with a connected load of 3477 KW and contract demand of 3000 KV, was not entitled to be treated as a non-continuous consumer without the consent of all consumers on the feeder, as per the petitioner's meeting dated 21.03.2009. The court held that the CGRF's direction to revise bills from 01.06.2008 was without jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) correctly interpreted the definition of 'Dedicated Distribution Facilities' under the MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulation, 2005 to classify the respondent as a non-continuous consumer on an express feeder, and whether the CGRF had jurisdiction to direct revision of energy bills from 01.06.2008.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 10.03.2010 and the corrigendum dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'Dedicated Distribution Facilities'
- Consumer classification under MERC tariff orders
- Jurisdiction of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
- Express feeder vs non-express feeder tariff
