1. In all these 4 petitions, the same petitioners are aggrieved by the identical orders passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum established u/s 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In all these impugned orders, the grievances put forth by the respondent consumers have been entertained and the petitioner has been directed to refund the excess fuel adjustment costs.

2. Considering the identical issues involved and since the petitioner/company and the respondent consumer are identical, these petitions have been taken up for final hearing at the admission stage, by the consent of the parties.

3. The following terms/abbreviations are being used in this order :

[a] The petitioner the company,

[b] The respondent the consumer,

[c] Fuel Adjustment Costs FAC

[d] Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission MERC

[e] Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum the Forum

[f] Internal Grievance Redressal Cell the Cell

[g] The Electricity Act, 2003 The 2003 Act

[h] Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations 2006 The 2006 Regulations.

4. I have heard the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent.

5. The petitioner Company has raised certain FAC bills for various months in different financial years in these petitions by which the Fuel Adjustment Costs are sought to be recovered from the consumer. By raising those bills, the consumer was informed about the FAC that it has to pay. The consumer has paid the said bills and has raised a grievance before the Cell by filing a representation on 08/08/2016 and thereafter, in the respective cases. The Cell declined to entertain the grievance/representation of the consumer by order dated 27/10/2016 on the ground that the representations were filed after 2 years which was the limitation period for raising a grievance before the Forum. The Consumer, therefore, approached the Forum which has entertained the grievance of the consumer and has delivered the impugned orders directing the petitioner/company to refund the amounts of FAC bills to the consumer.

6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon :-

[a] The judgment dated 19/01/2012 (Coram : G.S. Godbole, J., as he was then) in M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., and others in WP No.9455/2001.

[b] The judgment dated 10/07/2013 (Coram : A.V. Nirgude, J.) in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another Vs. Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur and another in WP No.1650/2012.

7. The respondent has relied upon the following judgments :

[a] S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1990 SC 10 (7 Judges Bench)]

[b] The Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Lucknow Vs. M/s Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur [AIR 1975 SC 1039 (3 Judges Bench)]

[c] The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. Thakoredas, Major and others [AIR 1994 SC 2227]

[d] Shewalkar Developers Limited Nagpur Vs. Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited, Pune [2016(1) Mh.L.J.382]

8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has primarily raised two issues. Firstly, that the limitation prescribed by the 2003 Act would render the grievance raised by the respondent before the Forum, beyond limitation. Secondly, the Forum, while allowing the claims of the respondent, has considered such commercial circulars which were inapplicable to the case and if this Court concludes that the grievance raised by the respondent was within limitation, the matter needs to be remitted to the Forum for enabling the petitioner to cite the appropriate commercial circulars pertaining to the periods for which the consumer was charged for electricity consumption.

9. My attention is drawn to Section 42 of the 2003 Act which reads as under :-

“42. Duties of distribution licensee and open access.-

1. It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions