SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VINEET KOTHARI, B.N. KARIA, JJ.
Ashwamegh Co.Op Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag-5 – Appellant
Versus
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Electricity Ombudsman – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3739 of 2012, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5229, 4668, 4311 of 2016, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 74 of 2014, 1582 to 1584 of 2019
Decided on : 30-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. MIHIR THAKORE, with MS. LILU K. BHAYA, ld. Advocate
For the Respondent: MS. SONAL D. VYAS,

Point of Law: Commission constituted under Section 17 of the 1998 Act is an expert body and the determination of tariff which has to be made by the Commission involves a very highly technical procedure, requiring working knowledge of law, engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management. A perusal of the report of ASCI as well as that of the Commission abundantly proves this fact. Therefore, it would be more appropriate and effective if a statutory appeal is provided to a similar expert body, so that the various questions which are factual and technical that arise in such an appeal, get appropriate consideration in the first appellate stage also.

Headnote:

State Act - Section 65(1) - Power to recover expenditure of Central Act and Regulation - Section 46 ,43 - Distribution Supply electricity on request and recovery of expenditure - Respondent No.1 with a request to quash orders passed by Electricity Ombudsman directing difference of charges to Appellant - As all these Letters Patent Appeal are based on identical facts and are raising similar questions of law, with consent of parties, matters are taken up for joint hearing in Court for purpose of concluding decision of group of Letters Patent Appeals –

Finding of the Court:

, Amount recovered by respondent No.1 from Appellant shall be refunded within a period of 4 weeks from date of passing of order - Considering aforesaid facts and provisions as referred in judgment, respondent No1 is not entitled to recover (1) transformer charges (2) Separate High Tension (HT) line (LT) line charges from Appellant inspite of prohibitory direction issued by GERC - Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new substations, distribution licensee shall supply electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission - this Court to the effect that Central Commission constituted under Section 3 of Act is an expert body which has been entrusted with task of determination of tariff and as determination of tariff involves highly technical procedure requiring not only working knowledge of law but also of engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management, Court was firmly of view that issues with regard to determination of tariff should be left to said expert body and ordinarily High Court and even Court should not interfere with determination of tariff –

Result: Appeal hereby Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2014 is filed by the present appellant {hereinafter referred to as Electric Company in LPA No. 74 of 2014} against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by learned Single Judge wherein, Special Civil Application preferred by the Appellant was dismissed and order passed by the The Electricity Ombudsman Gujarat State in Case No. 82 of 2011 dated 9.1.2012 was challenged.

2. Whereas, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1583 of 2019, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1582 of 2019 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1584 of 2019 are against the order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4668 of 2016; Special Civil Application No. 4311 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No. 5229 of 2016 dated 30.4.2019 respectively preferred by the respondent No.1 with a request to quash the orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman directing the difference of charges to the Appellant. As all these Letters Patent Appeal are based on identical facts and are raising similar questions of law, with the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for joint hearing in this Court for the purpose of concluding decision of this group of Letters Patent Appeals.

3. The facts are extract from the lead matter i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1583 of 2019.

3.1 It is the case of the Appellant that Appellant being Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The main object of the Society is for providing 52 residential accommodation to its members by constructing their respective bungalows. The society needed electric connection for the purpose of construction as well as for the residential bungalows. The land of the society was abutting the Town Planning Scheme where the respondent -Company electric sub station was situated and had its distribution mains and from where, the respondent No.1 -Company was required to lay the service line for supplying the electricity to the society and its members. The Appellant needed the following electricity supply for the residences of its members in the society.

Sr.No.

Total Number of Bungalows

Demand in KW

Aggregate demand in KW

Total KW

1.

1

13

13

 

2.

1

12

12

 

3.

3

11

33

 

4.

15

10

150

 

5.

3

9

27

 

6.

29

8

232

467

7.

Common lighting

15

15

15

8.

Water works

35

35

35

 

 

 

Grand Total

517

3.2 As per say of the Appellant, the provision of Regulation 4.1(i) of the GERC (Licensee’s Power to Recover Expenditure) Regulations, 2005, the Appellant and its members for domestic consumers made a demand on KW basis for the aforesaid total load of 517 KW for supply of electricity from the respondent No.1 Distribution Company. Respondent -Company is duty bound to recover charges on KW basis from the Appellant in accordance with the directions dated 30.12.2010 issued by GERC and as per the schedule reflected in the communication dated 30.12.2010. As per say of the Appellant, respondent No.1-Electric Company cannot recover the cost of transformer and service line from the Society and its members being domestic consumers. On 25.2.2013, the Appellant applied to the respondent No.1 for providing electricity supply for itself and for its 52 members being the bungalows. Respondent No.1 without any authority has collected huge amount of Rs. 16,55,665- and Rs.40,713/- from the Appellant. The Appellant -Society made a complaint to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the respondent No.1 vide complaint No. 22/2015-16, wherein, it was prayed for a refund of the excess amount of Rs.16,96,378/-. The Grievance Forum, ignoring the provisions of the Central Act, State Act and Regulations enacted by the GERC being the regulatory authority and the directions issued by it from time to time as well as the provisions of Supply Code, mec

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top