The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Electricity Regulatory Commission to regulate tariff applicability and ensure fair and non-discriminatory tariff determination.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

The captioned First Appeal and Special Civil Application are interactive in their facts and controversy involved. They were ordered to be notified together and were heard together. Therefore, both are treated together by this common judgement and order.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Shakti Jadeja for learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the appellant and the petitioner in the First Appeal and Special Civil Application respectively and learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for respondent Gujarat Urjha Vikas Nigam Ltd. in both, at length.

2. The First Appeal under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 by the appellant M/s. Sabic Research & Technology Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the order dated 25.09.2002 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission at Ahmedabad in Petition No. 62 of 2002, which was filed before the Commission by the appellant Company.

2.1 On the other hand, in the Special Civil Application, the prayer made by the petitioner Company was to set aside the classification in Commercial Circular No. 767 dated 13.07.2004 wherein the research and development units recognised by the Ministry of Science & Technology came to be included in the category of HTP-I rate.

2.2 It was further prayed to direct the respondent Gujarat Electricity Board (now Urjha Vikas Nigam Ltd.) to charge the petitioner under HTP I rate since its inception on the ground that the respondent Board had unilaterally changed the classification of the petitioner Company and that since the Company was engaged in research activity, which was included in HTP I rate as per the circular in question.

2.3 The petitioner next prayed to set aside, by inserting prayer by way of amendment, the tariff order dated 25.06.2004 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, insofar as it extended the benefit of HTP I rates to recognised research and development units only.

Facts relating to First Appeal

3. In the petition taken out by the appellant M/s. Sabic Research & Technology Pvt. Ltd. before the Electricity Regulatory Commission, it was the case that the appellant Company was running research establishment and was availing electricity supply from the then Gujarat Electricity Board. The Company which was carrying out research in petrochemical field, had entered into agreement with Gujarat Electricity Board for supply of High Tension power supply of 2400 KVA to cater requirement of research activity. As per clause 8(a) of the said agreement dated 27.03.2000, the parties agreed for applying tariff schedule HTP-I.

3.1 The electricity connection was given from 19.01.2002 to the appellant company. The company was billed for this Tariff HTP-I for the months January and February 2001. it was the case that from March 2001, GEB unilaterally changed the applicable tariff from HTP-I to HTP-II(A). According to their case, this resulted into additional financial burden on the appellant Company. The case of the appellant was that it did not fall within the category of HTP-II( A), which was higher tariff rate, but it fell within the category of HTP-I.

3.2 It was the contention raised before the Regulatory Commission that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter. It was contended that once the tariff was determined, its applicability was subject matter between the GEB and consumer and that the Commission had no role to play in that regard. It was submitted that release order for electricity supply was already issued and that the company was informed that it would be charged for HTP-II(A) tariff.

3.3 The said stance on behalf of the Board about the absence of jurisdiction and applicability of HTP-II(A) tariff was countered by the appellant Company by filing addenda to the original petition, in which it was firstly contended that the Commission was enjoined to safeguard the interest of the consumers under Section 29(2)(e) of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998.

3.4 It was stated that the tariff deter