JUDGMENT :

1. All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioner Discom-Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “JVVNL”) assailing different orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Rajasthan (for short “EO”). The issue before the EO was regarding recovery of transformation losses (at 3%) and cost/pro-rata cost of EHV 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, all the consumers/applicants before the EO were large industrial consumers of electricity who were receiving voltage supply 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 cost/pro rata cost of the transformer. The said levy was challenged by the consumers and the EO held the said levy to be without authority of law.

3. As common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, with consent of the parties, they were all heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order.

FACTS/BACKGROUND:

4. The facts of the case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner-Discom, are as follows: 4.1) In SB Civil Writ Petition No.8753/2013, it is submitted that prior to 17.04.2006, the respondent-consumer was having a contract demand of 2600 KVA and accordingly its voltage supply was HT-33 KV. On 17.04.2006, the respondent-consumer applied for load extension from 2600 KVA to 6000 KVA with further request to sanction the same on lower load extension of 33 KVA power supply line instead of prescribed 132 KVA power supply line. On 19.05.2006, the application of the consumer was accepted with condition that respondent-consumer would be liable to pay the transformation losses charged @ 3% of total recorded consumption and with the condition that the respondent-consumer would also bear pro rata cost of EHP transformer above contract demand of 5000 KVA. Subsequently, the demand notice was accepted without protest and accordingly 3% transformation losses were being added and recovered from time to time. On 05.03.2007, respondent-consumer again applied for extension of load from 6000 KVA to 7000 KVA on 132 KV line but the said demand was refused by petitioner-Discom on 31.07.2007 due to non-availability of right of way. In the meanwhile, on 26.05.2007, respondent-consumer made another application for extension of contract demand from 6000 KVA to 6600 KVA on 33KV line. On 20.06.2007, the said application for extension was accepted and the contract demand of the respondent-consumer was increased to 6600 KVA on the 33KV line with the condition of 3% transformation losses over and above 5 MVA. The said practice continued till 2012 and it was only in October, 2012 that for the very first time, the respondent-consumer approached the Corporate Level Redressel Committee (for short “CLRC”) under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “Act of 2003”) alleging that levy of 3% transform