Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
M/s Deesan Agro Tech Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 6382, 6383, 6384 of 2020
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Electricity Act - Distribution Licensee - Regulations of 2005 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Electricity Act, 2003, Section 42(5); Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005, Regulation 2.1(g), 3.3.3, 18; Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and EO) Regulations, 2006, Regulation 6.2(a); Section 43, 55 - The court discussed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Regulations of 2005 and 2006, particularly focusing on the definition of Dedicated Distribution Facilities (DDF) and the entitlement of the Distribution Licensee to recover expenses reasonably incurred on such works. The court also highlighted the obligations of the Distribution Licensee in providing electricity supply and the rights and responsibilities of the consumers in relation to metering and infrastructure costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Distribution Licensee challenged the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum's (CGRF) decision to refund meter cubicles and other instrument costs and infrastructural costs incurred by the consumers while obtaining electricity connection. The Distribution Licensee argued that the consumers should bear the infrastructural costs, while the consumers contended that the regulations did not empower the Distribution Licensee to recover the cost of the meter and that it was the primary responsibility of the Distribution Licensee to supply electricity through the correct meter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CGRF's decisions were arbitrary and capricious as they did not consider the consumers' agreement to bear infrastructural costs and purchase meters and metering cubicles. The court also emphasized the consumers' failure to specifically deny that the connection provided to them was a DDF, and the lack of dispute raised by the consumers regarding the nature of their connection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the Distribution Licensee to recover expenses for Dedicated Distribution Facilities, the consumers' responsibility for infrastructural costs, and the consumers' agreement to purchase meters and metering cubicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consumers' agreement to bear infrastructural costs and purchase meters and metering cubicles, the lack of specific denial regarding the nature of the connection provided, and the absence of a dispute raised by the consumers on the nature of their connection.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petitions, quashed and set aside the CGRF's judgments and orders, and made the Rule absolute in each of the petitions.
JUDGMENT :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Savale waives service for the respondents in all these petitions. With the consent of both the sides, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. In all these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a Distribution Licensee, established under the Electricity Act, 2003, is impugning the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (“CGRF” for short), established under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, whereby it quashed and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Internal Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell (for short “ICGRC”) by which it had rejected/dismissed the claims of the respondents for refund of meter cubicles and other instrument costs and infrastructural cost incurred by them while obtaining electricity connection, allowing the claims of the respondents for such refund. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions and the Advocates for both the sides being the same, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. For the sake of understanding, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as “Distribution Licensee” and “Consumers” as per their status under the Electricity Act.
5. In sum and substance, the arguments of Mr. A.S. Shelke, the learned Advocate for the Distribution Licensee are to the effect that on a request of the Consumers, it had provided electricity connection which was a Dedicated Distribution Facility (for brevity “DDF”) as defined under Regulation 2.1(g) of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2005”). Since it is a DDF, as per Regulation 3.3.3, the Distribution Licensee is entitled to recover all expenses reasonably incurred on such works based on the schedule of charges approved by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (“MERC” for short) under Regulation 18 and therefore, the Consumers have to bear the infrastructural costs, including metering cubicles with 1.3% supervision charges as laid down therein. The ICGRC had rightly appreciated these facts and circumstances and had dismissed the claims of the Consumers for refund. Without there being any just and reasonable ground, the CGRF quashed and set aside the decisions of the ICGRC and allowed the complaint of the Consumers and directed a refund as claimed by them by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of MSEDCL, Wardha vs. Mohan Pundlik Manmode in Writ Petition No. 6619 of 2019 dated 11.10.2019 (Nagpur Bench) and the Circular No. CE Testing/ HT-EHV/Metering/Circular/CM-CF/8378 dated 16.04.2018.
6. The learned Advocate would submit that the reliance placed by the CGRF on this decision and the Circular was misplaced. It was on the basis of the facts and circumstances obtaining before the Court that it was held that the electricity connection provided to the Consumer therein could not be regarded as DDF. He would submit that in turn, in that decision, reliance was placed on another decision of this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), Nagpur vs. M/s Darpan Multi Polypack (India) Private Limited, Nagpur and Another in Writ Petition No. 468 of 2018, dated 20.03.2019. He would submit that even in the case of M/s Darpan Multi Polypack (India) Private Limited, Nagpur and Another (supra), it was on the facts and circumstances obtaining before the Court that it was held that the facility that was provided to the Consumer therein was not a DDF, as defined under Regulation 2.1 (g). He would submit that in the matter in hand, no such dispute has been raised and the facility that has been provided to the Consumers is, in fact, a DDF.
7. So far as the Circular dated 16.04.2018 is concerned, Mr. Shelke, the learned Advocate would submit that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
