ORDER :

1. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-consumer assailing the impugned award/order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Rajasthan (for short “EO”) in Case No. EOR 457/2019 titled as ‘M/s NEI Ltd. vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited’. The issue before the EO was whether the Discom-Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “JVVNL”) had authority to recover transformation losses (at 3%) and pro-rata cost of Transformer, from the consumers who were falling under the category of ‘Large Industries’, on allowing increase in contract demand at lower voltage than the prescribed level of supply of voltage according to their contract demand. For reference, the prescribed voltage level for various categories of load is reproduced as under:

“Note:

…

(v) The Nigam may allow supply to a consumer at a voltage level one stage higher or lower in exceptional circumstances.”

2. Admittedly, petitioner-consumer was a large industrial consumers of electricity who were receiving voltage supply at-least one stage lower than the prescribed load after their application for extension of contract demand was accepted. Since the supply was on one stage lower, which was only permissible in exceptional circumstances, the Discom was levying a charge of 3% as transformation losses and pro rata cost of the transformer. The said levy was challenged by the petitioner-consumer and the EO held the same to be valid and legal vide impugned award/order dated 16.07.2019. Aggrieved by the impugned award/order of the EO, the present writ petition was filed.

FACTS

3. This case has a long chequered history and involves some disputed questions of facts. Bereft of any unnecessary details, the relevant and necessary facts for the just adjudication of the case are as follows:

a.) The petitioner-consumer is a HT consumer having an electric connection with a contract demand (for short “CD”) of 9000 KVA and was in existence of 11KV supply voltage since the year 1978. The 9000KVA CD was availed by the petitioner upto 06.12.2001 and from 07.12.2001, on the request of the petitioner-consumer, the CD was reduced from 9000 KVA to 5700 KVA.

b.) In 2005, beginning from 04.05.2005, petitioner-consumer requested the respondent-discom to increase the CD to 7500 KVA. After multiple back and forth communication, and the petitioner-consumer having shown his willingness to install the necessary infrastructure, the CD of the petitioner-consumer was increased from 5700 KVA to 7500 KVA on 11 KV supply voltage, instead of the prescribed 132KV supply voltage, vide sanction letter 06.10.2005.

c.) Thereafter, on 28.11.2007, a letter was sent by respondent-discom to petitioner-consumer alleging that no action was taken by the petitioner-consumer to create new grid for taking connection at 132KV level. The petitioner-consumer replied to the letter dated 28.11.2007 inter-alia praying respondent-discom to honour their decision and continue the power supply with requisite voltage without any levy or penalty in future.

d.) The petitioner-consumer again requested for enhancement of CD from 7500 KVA to 10000 KVA vide letter dated 21.08.2008. The CD was accordingly increased form 7500 KVA to 8000 KVA on 31.03.2009 on the condition that the petitioner-consumer will develop the requisite infrastructure within a span of 18 months of finalization of feasibility report. After examination of the issue by the respondent-discom, it was concluded th