SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity at New Delhi)
M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. JSW Steel Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5074-5075 of 2019
Decided on : 10-12-2021
(A) Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 42(4) read with Section 9 – Liability of captive consumers/captive users to pay additional surcharge – Merely because supply of electricity from captive generating plant through grid shall be regulated in same manner as generating station of a generating company or open access for the purpose of carrying electricity from captive generating plant to destination of his use shall be subject to availability of adequate transmission facility determined by Central Transmission Utility or State Transmission Utility, it cannot be said that for captive generation plant, State Commission’s permission is required – Right to open access to transmit/carry electricity to captive user is granted by the Act, and is not subject to and does not require Sate Commission’s permission – Right is conditioned by availability of transmission facility, which aspect can be determined by Central or State transmission utility – Only in case of dispute, State Commission may adjudicate. (Para 9)
(B) Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 42(4) – Liability of captive consumers/captive users to pay additional surcharge – Sub-section (4) of Section 42 shall be applicable only in a case where State Commission permits a consumer or class of consumers to receive supply of electricity from a person other than distribution licensee of his area of supply and only such consumer shall be liable to pay additional surcharge on charges of wheeling, as may be specified by State Commission – Captive user requires no such permission, as he has statutory right – If a consumer or class of consumers want to receive supply of electricity from a person other than distribution licensee of his area of supply, he has to compensate for fixed cost and expenses of such distribution licensee arising out of his obligation to supply – Levy of additional surcharge under sub-section (4) of Section 42 can be said to be justified and can be imposed and also can be said to be compensatory in nature – So far as captive consumers / captive users are concerned, they are not liable to pay additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of Act, 2003 – Consumers defined under Section 2(15) and captive consumers are different and distinct and they form a separate class by themselves – So far as captive consumers are concerned, they incur a huge expenditure/invest a huge amount for the purpose of construction, maintenance or operation of a captive generating plant and dedicated transmission lines – Such captive consumers/captive users, who form a separate class other than consumers defined under Section 2(15) of Act, 2003, shall not be subjected to and/or liable to pay additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of Act, 2003. (Paras 11, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, Delhi whereby Appellate Tribunal has allowed appeals preferred by the respondents herein – ‘captive consumers’ and has set aside order passed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission by which State Commission has held that the group of ‘captive consumers’ are liable to pay additional surcharge, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Distribution Licensee), has preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Considering the fact that there shall be huge liability on appellant – distribution license if they have to now refund the amount of additional surcharge recovered at a stretch, additional surcharge already recovered from captive consumers/captive users shall be adjusted in the future wheeling charges bills.
Result : Appeals dismissed with observations.
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, Delhi in Appeal Nos. 311 and 315 of 2018 whereby the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the said appeals preferred by the respondents herein - the 'captive consumers' and has set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Petition No. 195 of 2017 by which the State Commission has held that the group of 'captive consumers' are liable to pay additional surcharge, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution licensee"), has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant as distribution licensee filed a petition before the State Commission for MYT approval for FY 2014-2015, provisional truing up of ARR for FY 2015-2016 and Multi Year Tariff for 3rd Control Period FY 2016-2017 to FY 2019-2020. The said petition was numbered as Case No.48 of 2016. The State Commission held that the additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2003") is not applicable to captive users to the extent of their self-consumption from such plants. The State Commission also held that the additional surcharge shall be applicable to all consumers who have availed open access to receive supply from sources other than the distribution licensee to which they are connected.
3. The appellant - distribution licensee submitted its revised Review Petition being Case No.195 of 2017, for approval of final true up of ARR for FY 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, provisional true up of ARR for FY 2017-2018 and approval for revised forecast of ARR for FY 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, inter alia, including the prayer "to approve additional surcharge for all open access consumers including those sourcing power from CPPS as proposed for FY 2018-2019 to FY 2019-2020". The Captive Power Producers Association filed their objections including the objections with respect to levy of additional surcharge on such captive users. That by order dated 12.09.2018, the State Commission passed the order holding that additional surcharge is leviable under Section 42(4) of the Act, 2003 on the captive consumers/captive users.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission allowing the levy of additional surcharge from the captive consumers/captive users, the respondents herein - captive users/captive consumers approached the Appellate Tribunal. By impugned order dated 27.03.2019, the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the said appeals and has set aside the order passed by the State Commission ordering/permitting to levy the additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of the Act, 2003 and has held that the group of captive consumers are not liable to pay additional surcharge to the distribution licensee.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the group of captive consumers/captive users are not liable to pay the additional surcharge leviable under section 42(4) of the Act, 2003, appellant - distribution licensee.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant -distribution licensee as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents - intervenors - the captive consumers/captive users at length.
7. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is:
8. While deciding the aforesaid issue/question, the relevant provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 namely Sections 9 and 42 are required to be noted/visited, which reads as under:-
Captive consumers / captive users are not liable to pay additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of Electricity Act, 2003 – Consumers defined under Section 2(15) of Electricity Act, 2003 and captive ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of the conditions for a power plant to qualify as a 'Captive Generating Plant' as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 a....
The court upheld that cross-subsidy surcharges are constitutional and integral to the Electricity Act's framework, ensuring fair distribution of electricity costs.
Entity maintaining internal electricity network solely for own consumption fails to qualify as deemed distribution licensee and remains liable for surcharges as consumer availing open access.
Captive generating plants must ensure 26% ownership and 51% consumption by captive users, interpreted not only to include individuals but also legal entities as associations, ensuring compliance with....
The absence of regulations does not invalidate the Board's authority to set Grid Tariffs under the Electricity (Supply) Act, provided such tariffs adhere to the principles outlined within the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.