IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog - Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL and others - Respondents
CWP No. 12178 of 2024 with CWP Nos. 12180, 12273-12275, 12292, 12293, 12365-12372, 12397- 12403, 12407, 12413, 12414, 12486, 12494, 12497, 12500, 12503, 12545, 12547, 12549, 12557, 12560, 12565, 12624, 12631-12632, 12663, 12665-12669, 12671, 12675, 12678, 12683, 12690, 12692,12695, 12772, 12774-12777, 12781, 12786-12789, 12803- 12809, 12812-12814, 12833, 12835, 12836, 12838, 12841, 12877, 12880, 12893, 12894, 12895, 12898, 12899, 12902, 12903, 12911,
12913, 12988, 12992, 13004, 13112, 13114, 13115, 13126, 13128, 13129, 13139, 13143, 13145, 13148, 13203-13205, 13208, 13213, 13216-13219, 13249, 13254, 13263, 13268, 13269-13271, 13273- 13277, 13297, 13299-13304, 13306-13309, 13329, 13333, 13336, 13341, 13367, 13371, 13380, 13381, 13385, 13387, 13389, 13405, 13415, 13421, 13423, 13428, 13430, 13432, 13434, 13436, 13439, 13441, 13469, 13471, 13472, 13473, 13475, 13486-13488, 13516, 13518, 13521, 13522, 13529, 13531, 13538, 13659, 13673, 13674, 13675, 13679, 13680, 13682, 13688, 13689, 13693, 13695, 1379, 13791, 13802, 13808, 13810, 13812, 13813, 13814, 13815, 13816, 13941 of 2024
Decided on : 03-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common questions of facts and law addressed. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners' grievances about tariff changes. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. interim directions regarding energy bills. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments on the amendment of tariff orders. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. discussion on the consumer's rights and subsidy. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal framework defining tariff regulations. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. regulatory provisions and subsidy implementations. (Para 22 , 24 , 30) |
| 8. clarifications on the subsidy and tariff approvals. (Para 36 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. determining tariff without subsidies due to governmental actions. (Para 42 , 50 , 52) |
| 10. final ruling on the validity of the energy bills. (Para 60 , 71 , 73) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the above captioned cases and petitioners therein are aggrieved by energy bill issued by respondent No.2 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter, ‘Board’) for the month of October, 2024, without extending benefit of additional subsidy otherwise provided by respondent No.3 Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter, ‘Commission’) in Tariff Order for Financial Year 2024-25, this court with the consent of parties, clubbed all the cases and now same are being disposed of vide this common order.
2. Though, facts in all the petitions are common, as such, same are not required to be specifically referred from one particular petition, but since, certain documents, pursuant to which change in Tariff Order came to be effected, are required to be taken note, this court for the sake of clarity, shall take note of pleadings as well as documents, adduced on record in the lead case i.e. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others (CWP No. 12178 of 2024).
3. Primarily, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions at hand and further canvassed by the respective learned senior counsel and learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is that the Board could not have withdrawn the benefit of additional subsidy of its own, while issuing energy bills for the month of October, 2024, especially when such benefit stood granted to them by the Commission, while approving Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2024-25 effective from 1.4.2024 till 31.3.2025. Though, the petitioners herein do not deny power of the Commission to amend/modify the Tariff Order, approved by it for a particular Financial Year, but their grouse is that the Tariff Order, once approved, cannot be changed/altered without there being amendment in the Tariff Order, which can only be passed by the Commission, while exercising power under S.62(6) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter, ‘Act’).
4. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, facts, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the controversy at hand are that vide order dated 15.3.2024 (Annexure P-6), Commission passed Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2024-25, wherein afore authority while retaining tariff structure of 4th APR (Annual Performance Review) order approved tariff for Financial Year 2024-25,, with and without subsidy. It is not in dispute, rather stands admitted that, after passing of the afore Tariff Order, petitioners herein, which fall under the category of large scale industry, kept on receiving energy bill, as per Tariff Order dated 15.3.2024, approved by the Commission with subsidy.
5. Vide communication dated 18.9.2024, (Annexure P-7), Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh apprised the Commission that impact of increase in tariff will not be neutralized through additional subsidy as per letter dated 13.3.2024 in respect of large scale power supply with effect from 1.10.2024. While conveying aforesaid decision, Government also requested Commission to get order dated 15.3.2024 amended suitably at the earliest. After receipt of aforesaid communication, Secretary of the Commission vide commu
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd.
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Paschihmanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adarsh Textiles and another
The Electricity Board's action to issue energy bills without subsidy was lawful under the Electricity Act after the State Government's withdrawal of additional subsidy, as the Tariff Order provided f....
The absence of regulations does not invalidate the Board's authority to set Grid Tariffs under the Electricity (Supply) Act, provided such tariffs adhere to the principles outlined within the Act.
Point of law: Commission cannot be kept in the dark when the effect is amendment to the PPA.
The court emphasized that the circulars were issued to encourage consumption of electricity during lean hours and not to confer benefits retrospectively, and that the circular could not be made effec....
Point of law: since Merit Order Despatch does not apply to renewable energy, which runs on Must Run Basis, the learned single Judge has not committed any illegality in directing that the respondents ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.