35. In the instant case, the Electricity Ombudsman has issued direction for giving new electricity connection to the consumer by tapping 33 KV Fatehpur feeder emanating from 132 KV sub-station, Malwan. Admittedly, the load sought to be released is above 1000 KVA. It is also not in dispute that the consumer requires the electricity connection for manufacturing MS Ingots by induction furnaces, which is one of the industries covered by Clause 3.1 of the Supply Code. It has already been held above that load of 1000 KVA and above to such industry after enforcement of the Supply Code can only be released through an independent feeder. In view of it, the direction given by the Electricity Ombudsman is contrary to the specific provisions viz., Clause 3.4 (a) of the Supply Code. Under Regulation 11, the award of the Electricity Ombudsman cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Supply Code. A fortiori, the direction given by the Electricity Ombudsman in its impugned award cannot be sustained.

36. Further, the award is absolutely vague. A perusal of the penultimate paragraph of the award conveys an impression that the new connection is to be supplied to the consumer by tapping 33 KV Fatehpur feeder as a temporary measure. It has not been provided in the award that for how long the aforesaid arrangement is to continue. It has also not been stipulated therein that such arrangement has to last only till the construction of independent feeder at the cost of consumer. On the contrary, a perusal of the pleadings made by the consumer before the Electricity Ombudsman and also before this Court in Writ Petition No. 44169 of 2008 filed by it, reflects that the consumer is not agreeable to bear the expense of construction of the independent feeder and to take supply of electricity by tapping of 33 KV Fatehpur feeder only as a temporary measure. Thus, the award of the Electricity Ombudsman being contrary to the specific provision of the Supply Code, cannot be sustained in law. The Electricity Ombudsman had exceeded its jurisdiction, in making such an award.

37. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the scope and power of Electricity Ombudsman in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Vishwa Calibere Builders Private Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 539. In that case, the Electricity Ombudsman exercising power under the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation, 2005 had issued a direction to regularise the unauthorised use of electricity by the respondent of the said case and for refund of alleged excess amount charged from him. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction had refused to interfere with the order of the Electricity Ombudsman. Before the Apex Court, the specific contention was that there is no provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations framed for regularisation of unauthorised use of electricity which may confer any power on the Ombudsman to direct deemed regularisation of extra load. The Apex Court after considering the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations framed thereunder held as under:

“13. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and agree with him that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Regulations framed by the appellant, the Ombudsman committed jurisdictional error by directing regularisation of unauthorised use of electricity by the respondent and refund of the alleged excess amount charged by the appellant.

15. ....................This being the position, the fault, if any, for non-release of the balance load lay at the doors of the respondent and the Ombudsman committed serious error by directing the appellant to refund the alleged excess amount collected from the respondent on account of use of electricity over and above the sanctioned load.”

38. In another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank v. P.R.N. Upadhyaya and others, (1998) 6 SCC 526, the Apex Court was considering the scope of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document