Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Viraj Profile Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3708 of 2019
Decided on : 28-11-2023
Jurisdiction - Electricity Dispute - MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 - [MSEDCL] - [Electricity Dispute] - [Regulation 2.1(c), Regulation 4.14, Regulation 2.1(g), Regulation 8, Regulation 32, Regulation 38.4, Section 2(47), Section 42, Section 86(1)(f)] - The court upheld the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum's (CGRF) jurisdiction to adjudicate the billing dispute, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the dispute should be referred to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) under the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016. The court reasoned that the dispute was an individual billing grievance, falling within the definition of 'Grievance' as per Regulation 2 of MERC (CGRF & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, and therefore, the jurisdiction of MERC did not apply. The court also highlighted that the MERC's adjudicatory function is limited to matters prescribed under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, and that the dispute in question did not fall within the scope of MERC's jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, MSEDCL, filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) regarding a billing dispute with the Respondent, a consumer of electricity. The Petitioner argued that the CGRF did not have jurisdiction over the dispute and that it should be referred to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). The Respondent sought refund of excess amount recovered by the Petitioner and adjustment of reduction in open access capacity and enhancement of contract demand.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the CGRF's jurisdiction to adjudicate the billing dispute, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the dispute should be referred to MERC under the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016. The court reasoned that the dispute was an individual billing grievance, falling within the definition of 'Grievance' as per Regulation 2 of MERC (CGRF & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, and therefore, the jurisdiction of MERC did not apply.
Issues: The main issue was whether the CGRF had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the Respondent or whether the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same was with MERC as contended by the Petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was an individual billing grievance, falling within the definition of 'Grievance' as per Regulation 2 of MERC (CGRF & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2006, and therefore, the jurisdiction of MERC did not apply. The court also highlighted that the MERC's adjudicatory function is limited to matters prescribed under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, and that the dispute in question did not fall within the scope of MERC's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the CGRF dated 29.08.2018, sustaining its jurisdiction to adjudicate the billing dispute.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent. By consent of parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner i.e. MSEDCL for the following reliefs:-
b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned CGRF;
c. Alternatively, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the name of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for the papers and proceedings leading to the passing of the impugned Order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned CGRF and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof remand the matter for fresh de-novo adjudication.”
3. Petitioner is the State Electricity Distribution Company in the State of Maharashtra (for short “MSEDCL”). Respondent is a consumer of electricity having Consumer No.003019031500. Respondent is engaged in the business of stainless steel manufacturing unit at Boisar, Palghar with open access capacity 4550 KVA and MSEDCL contract demand of 500 KVA.
4. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short “CGRF”) and in the alternative sought quashing aside and a fresh remand of the matter for de novo adjudication.
5. Briefly stated, facts which have resulted in the filing of the present Writ Petition are outlined herein under:-
(ii) On 20.05.2015, Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEDCL approved the Application and issued sanction for Open Access of 4500 KVA and retention of Contract Demand of 500 KVA.
(iii) On 21.09.2016, Respondent made Application to the Superintendent Engineer, MSEDCL, Palghar for revision of Contract Demand from 500 KVA to 2000 KVA and consequentially reduction of Open Access quantum/capacity from 4500 KVA to 3000 KVA. At the same time, Application was also endorsed to the Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEDCL.
(iv) On 21.10.2016, Superintendent Engineer issued sanction for enhancement of contract demand from 500 KVA to 2000 KVA to Respondent and consequent reduction in Open Access quantum/capacity.
(v) On 07.02.2017, Respondent applied to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) for revision in Contract Demand and reduction in Open Access capacity as sanctioned by the Superintendent Engineer.
(vi) On 11.05.2017, Chief Engineer (Commercial) allowed revision of Contract Demand from 4000 KVA to 3000 KVA, but made it effective only from the month of May 2017 onwards, though revision was already effected from 21.10.2016 (date of sanction by the Superintendent Engineer).
(vii) Being aggrieved, by the above order granting revision effective from May 2017 and not from the date of sanction by the Supdt. Engineer i.e. 21.09.2016, Respondent filed a Grievance Application before the Internal Grievance Redressal Forum (for short “IGRC”) of Petitioner, which was dismissed by order dated 28.06.2018.
(v) Being aggrieved, Respondent filed complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short “CGR
The court established that the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) had jurisdiction to adjudicate individual billing grievances, rejecting the argument that such disputes should be referred to ....
The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to direct revisions of energy bills and grant subsidies, which fall under the authority of the Government of Maharashtra.
The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to revise energy bills or grant subsidies, which are matters for the Government of Maharashtra.
MSEDCL's recovery of excess AEC and FAC charges violated MERC orders, necessitating refunds with interest under the Electricity Act.
The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to theft of energy under the Electricity Act, which are to be addressed by specific statutory forums.
The court ruled that a distribution licensee cannot maintain a writ petition against the decisions of its own Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which operates as an internal mechanism under the Ele....
The distribution licensee cannot impose additional fees for transformer losses on consumers billed at low tension rates, as per established tariff regulations.
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
