Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Ritspin Synthetics Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 2004 of 2015
Decided On : 12-02-2018
For the Petitioners: Ajay Bagadiya with Amit Upadhyay.
For the Respondents: D.S. Panwar, S.S. Chouhan.
The MPERC is the competent authority to resolve electricity billing disputes, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions should be considered after MPERC's decision.
Headnote:
Electricity Billing Dispute - Companies Act - Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56(2) - Madhya Pradesh Electricity Balancing and Settlement Code, 2009, Clause 11 and 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, challenged the demand of supplementary bills by the respondent for availing power supply through Open Access and HT connection. The dispute revolved around the calculation and segregation of energy consumption under Open Access and HT connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to approach the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) under Clause 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Balancing and Settlement Code, 2009 to resolve the dispute. The applicability of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 would be considered after the decision of MPERC.
Issues: Dispute over supplementary billing for energy consumption under Open Access and HT connection, applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Balancing and Settlement Code, 2009, and jurisdiction of MPERC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MPERC is the competent authority to resolve the controversy and directed the petitioner to approach MPERC under Clause 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Balancing and Settlement Code, 2009.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to approach MPERC, and the applicability of section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 would be considered after the decision of MPERC.
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 2004/2015, 2159/2015, 2162/2015, 2494/2015, 1951/2015 and 1173/2016. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P. No. 2004/2015 have been taken.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by issuance of the impugned notice dated 21-9-2015 (Annexure P/3) and 12-3-2015 (Annexure P/4) and demand of supplementary bills. Since, the petitioner has paid the aforesaid amount, therefore, by way of this petition, seeking relief of quashment of demand and refund/release or adjustment of the said amount.
2. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act having its registered office at Plot No. 2, Kheda Industrial Growth Centre, Pithampur, District Dhar. The petitioner is involved in manufacture of Textile, Synthetic Yam etc.
3. The petitioner is a HT consumer of respondent No. 2 and 5. In order to get uninterrupted power supply, the petitioner opted for intra State “Open Access” which is an intra State supply to the consumers through intra State transmission system. The consumer is having liberty and discretion to avail the supply of electricity either from a Government Agency or from a Private Distribution Generator or Licensee other than his distribution company within whose geographical area the consumer is situated. The said facility is available subjected to specific terms and conditions. In order to avail the said facility, the petitioner is required to pay the cross subsidy billing charges for billing/energy charges and applicable transmission lines to respondent No. 2 MPPKVVCL.
4. The Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. is a Government company formed under the provisions of Companies Act and under section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is constituted under section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The MPPKVVCL came into existence after the bifurcation of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board into five companies. The MPPKVVCL is having responsibility for supply of electricity to its LT and HT consumers under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
5. The petitioner is availing the facility of Open Access from Central Transmission System for which it had obtained necessary grid compliances and due permission from MPPKVVCL as well as Nodal agency State Load Dispatch Center, as per the guidelines given in Madhya Pradesh Open Access Regulations, 2005. The petitioner is also a consumer availing HT power supply at 33KV for a contract demand of 3200 KVA under HT agreement dated 20-11-2013.
6. The MPPKVVCL used to issue a bill to the petitioner as per his consumption under Open Access System and the consumption of HT power supply since August, 2011. All of a sudden, the respondent No. 2 and 5 issued a notice for recovery of certain amount for availing power supply, through Open Access as well as HT connection for the period August, 2011 to November, 2014. Vide notice dated 21-9-2015, the Senior Account Officer, MPPKVVCL, Indore requested the petitioner to make additional payment of billing within 15 days from the consumer. The aforesaid demand was made on the basis of clarification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short “MPERC”) in case of mixed use of supply in the same premises (i) in case of use of supply from open access; (ii) also from HT connection. As per clarification given by the MPERC the scheduled energy under open access is to be adjusted first form the total consumption recorded in each 15 minutes block and balance energy in each 15 minutes block is to be considered against the HT agreement. Thereafter, vide notice dated 12-3-2015 (Annexure P/4), again Officer of respondent No. 2 and 5 issued supplementary additional bill from the period August, 2011 to January, 2014 for their recovery of amount of Rs. 31,45,946/-.
7. Being aggrieved by the demand of additional bill, the petitioner raised objection by letter dated 28-2-2015. The petitioner
