Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
SUNIL AMBWANI and PRAKASH GUPTA, JJ.
M/s.Birla Cement Works – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.599/2014
And
Hindustan Copper Limited – Appellant
versus
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr –Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.623/2014.
And
Chittor Cement Works – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.640/2014
And
Raghuveer Metal Indl. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.643/2014
And
Spinfed Spinning Unit – Appellant
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.644/2014
And
Shakti Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mill – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.645/2014
And
Assciated Soapstone Distributing Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.650/2014
And
Modern Woolens – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.651/2014
And
R.K. Marbles P. Ltd. – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.652/2014
and
Associated Soapstone Distributing Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.653/2014
And
J.K. Cement Works – Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.654/2014
And
Deepak Inorganics Ltd –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.658/2014
And
Suzuki Synthetics (P) Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.659/2014
And
Anant Syntex Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.660/2014
And
Synergy Steels Limited –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.664/2014
And
Swastika Suitings Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.665/2014
And
Spinfed Spinning Unit –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.675/2014
A Infrastructure Ltd –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.686/2014
And
Sarvodaya Suitings Ltd –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.687/2014
And
Peacock Industries Ltd –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.688/2014.
And
Janki Corp. Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.689/2014
And
Modern Threads (I) Ltd –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.695/2014
And
J.K. Cement Works –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.699/2014
And
Vindhyachal Marbles Processors & Ors. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.709/2014
And
Suruchi Marbles & Granites P. Ltd. & Ors. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.710/2014
And
Plaza Tex (India) Pvt. Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.711/2014
And
Shubh Laxmi Syntex Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.712/2014
And
Agarwal Marbles & Granites & Ors. –Appellants
Versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.713/2014
And
Shriganesh Texfab Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.715/2014
And
Ranjan Processors –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.728/2014
and
Aditya Polysack Pvt. Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.745/2014
And
Puja Spintex Pvt. Ltd. –Appellants
versus
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.746/2014
Decided On : 13th February, 2015
Appeals dismissed.
jktLFkku fo|qr fu;ked vk;ksx ¼ehVfjax½ fofu;e] 2006] /kkjk 56¼2½ & ehVj cnyuk & fMLdkse dh foQyrk & miHkksDrkvksa dks ^^r`rh; bdkbZ ikWoj QSDVj balsfUVo** ds ifjykHkksa ls oafpr fd;k tk jgk gS & vUrj dh jkf'k dh olwyh ls vo:) djus dh izkFkZuk dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & le; lhek ds Hkhrj okafNr fofunsZ'kksa okys ehVj cnyus@yxkus esa fMLdkWe dh foQyrk ij r`rh; bdkbZ ikWoj QSDVj bUlsfUVo dk ifjykHk nsus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk D;ksafd vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrkvksa dks Lo;a gh ,sls ehVj gkfly djus dk fodYi fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj vihykFkhZx.k ,slk djus esa foQy jgs & mPp U;k;ky; igqapus ls iwoZ mUgsa oSdfYid mipkj dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg;s Fkk & os ^^mPprj ikWoj QSDVj balsfUVo** dk nkok djus ds rc rd gdnkj ugha Fks tc rd fd balsfUVo gsrq lgh <ax ls r`rh; bdkbZ ikWoj QSDVj dks ntZ djus esa l{ke ehVj ugha yxk;s x;s& ehVjksa dh vkiwfrZ de Fkh & ehVj gkfly djuk vkSj mls LFkkfir djuk ;s nksuksa fHkUu&fHkUu dne gSA vihysa [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 19] 24 ls 27½
Key Points: - The 3rd digit power factor incentive can be denied on the failure of the Discoms to replace/install meters of required specifications within the time frame (!) (!) (!) . - Consumers are not entitled to claim higher power factor incentive until the meters, capable of recording 3rd digit power factor accurately, are installed (!) (!) (!) . - The meters were in short supply, and procurement of the meter and its installation are two different steps (!) (!) . - The existing meters were not of .2s class, which could not accurately measure the 3rd digit power factor for incentive purposes (!) (!) . - Incentive/disincentive with more fine tuning by reducing steps to 0.1% was decided, applicable only where meters comply with CEA requirements (!) (!) . - Section 56(2) is not attracted since the Discoms are not recovering any amount, only reversing credit erroneously given (!) (!) . - The reversal of credit for 3rd digit power factor incentive was upheld by the Single Judge, rejecting arguments of legitimate expectation and estoppel (!) (!) . - The appellants had an option to procure meters themselves for installation by the Discoms to avail higher incentive (!) (!) . - The credit reversal was valid as the meters capable of accurate measurement were not installed by the Discoms or the consumers (!) (!) . - All Special Appeals are dismissed, upholding the decisions of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (!) .
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr.Bipin Gupta appears for Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ms.Parinitoo Jain for Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer.
2. The appellants are industrial consumers of electricity distribution companies, namely, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Jodhpur Vitaran Nigam Limited (for short, ‘the respondent-Discoms/Discoms’). They filed writ petitions for replacement of meters, as stipulated in Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Metering) Regulations, 2006 (for short, ‘Regulations of 2006’), and to ensure that they are not deprived of the benefits of 3rd digit power factor incentive, on account of the failure of the Discoms in replacing meters of the required specifications. They also prayed for restraining the Discoms from making any recovery from the petitioners, of the differential amount between the 2nd digit power factor incentive and the 3rd digit power factor incentive, in the bills issued to them, with detailed calculation of excess power factor incentive allowed to the EHT consumers. Learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions, with the findings that if there was any doubt or ambiguity as to the consequence of failure of the Discoms to replace the existing meters by standard meters within the prescribed period, there being further stipulation that the consumers, if they wanted to avail the benefit of incentive earlier, could procure such meters themselves, and got them installed by the Discoms. The petitioners having failed to do so, the benefit of 3rd digit power factor was not available to them, in the period under dispute.
3. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions were that the Discoms, as licensees under Sections 14 & 15 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act’) to transmit, distribute and trading in electricity, are required to install a correct meter, in accordance with the Regulations, provided the licensee may require the consumers to give security for the price of a mater, and enter into an agreement for hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to procure the meter. The Central Electricity Authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 55(1) and Section 73(e) read with Section 177(2) of the Act, has framed the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006.
4. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur constituted by the State Government under Section 82 of the Act, in a Suo Motu petition No.130/2007, in the matter of Rationalization of Retail Tariffs for Vitaran Nigams in Rajasthan, on examination of the Aggregate Revenue Requirement for 2006-07 of the three Discoms determined by the Commission vide order dated 21.7.2006, found that they were running in revenue deficit of Rs.306.85 crores for Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Rs.51.68 crores, for Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Rs.280.08 crores for Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited. Since they did not file the tariff petitions, the Commission required them to file tariff petitions to provide for cross subsidy targeted to each consumer category, with or without State Government subsidies, fuel price adjustment, time of day/peak load hour tariff, rational classification of tariff category, as well as rationalization of tariffs. Since no tariff petition was filed within 30 days, the Commission took upon itself the suo motu determination of tariff, in accordance with Para 8.1 (7) of the Tariff Policy, extending the date of submission of tariff petitions up to 23.9.2006. Despite losses and the directions issued by the Commission, the Discoms did not file tariff petitions.
5. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission published the notices in the newspapers in December, 2006 and January-February, 2007, to which various persons/firms/organizations, inviting their comments/suggestions and objections. Having considered these comments/sugg
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
