The classification of a consumer under an electricity tariff category depends on the actual nature of usage and the specific regulatory framework, rather than definitions of 'industry' provided in unrelated labor, tax, or commercial statutes, which cannot be imported to override electricity tariff orders.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 61 and 62 - Classification of consumers - Tariff determination - Applicability of electricity tariffs is determined by the nature of usage rather than definitions of 'industry' contained in unrelated labor or tax statutes - Regulatory authority is empowered to create and implement distinct consumer categories based on the nature of electricity consumption at specific voltage levels - Mere historical classification does not entitle a consumer to retain a previous tariff category when regulations are updated. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Courts may decline to relegate a petitioner to alternative statutory remedies when a case has been pending before the court for an extended duration, as bypassing such long-standing matters would not serve the interest of justice. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a telecommunications services provider, sought to challenge its reclassification from an industrial tariff category to a newly introduced commercial category. The petitioner argued that its activities constituted an industry under various labor and tax-related statutes and that it was entitled to the lower industrial tariff rates. The electricity distribution licensee had reclassified the petitioner based on its commercial high-voltage electricity usage and sought to recover arrears. The petitioner challenged this, claiming the demand was retrospective and illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the classification of a consumer for electricity tariff purposes is governed by the specific tariff orders issued by the regulatory commission rather than broader definitions found in other enactments. The court found that the newly introduced commercial category for high-voltage users was objectively reasonable and based on the nature of usage, which applied to the petitioner regardless of its status under other laws.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's status as an 'industry' under labor or tax laws dictates its electricity tariff category; whether the regulatory reclassification based on usage for commercial purposes is valid under the current electricity regulatory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Definitions provided in other enactments are distinct and cannot be imported to interpret regulatory tariff schedules under electricity law. Tariff categorization must be aligned with the predominant nature of electricity usage, and regulators possess the mandate to classify consumers based on commercial versus industrial purposes at specified voltage levels.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) :-

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a Telecom Services Provider Company has sought for the following reliefs:-

“a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, other or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No. I its servants, officers and agents;

i) To supply electricity and charge the Petitioner tariff in respect of its HT connections under the HT Industrial category w.e.f. 1st June 2008 and for all times thereafter until appropriate Tariff Orders are passed by MERC charging the categorization of the Petitioner;

ii) To withdraw and/or cancel the bills in respect of HT connections enumerated in Exhibit 'C' hereto and to issue fresh bills to the Petitioner in respect of the lower tariffs under the industrial categories;

iii) To refund to the Petitioner or adjust the future electricity bills issued by Respondent No.1 upon the Petitioner he aggregate amount of Rs.62,13,14,817/- (Rupees Sixty Two Crore Thirteen Lacs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventeen only) (as per particulars of claim in Exhibit 'N' in respect of the excess amount charged to the Petitioner for HT connections from 1st June 2008 till July 2010.

iv) To withdraw and/or cancel Respondent No.1’s commercial circular dated 26th June 2009 bearing Ref. No. PR3/TARIFF/21959;

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Respondent No.1, their servants, agents, officers or successors by an order writ and injunction from issuing any further orders/circulars contrary to MERC’s Tariff Orders and from charging the Petitioner any rate for HT Connections other than the HT Industrial Tariff Rate 3 as per HT-1: HT-Industrial category.

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct Respondent No. 1, its servants, agents, officers or successors to charge Petitioner Industrial tariff as per HT-1: HT-Industrial category;

(d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) and (c) above;

(e) For costs of the Petition; and

(f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The sole issue involved in the present petition is as to whether the Petitioner for the period 2008-2010 is liable to pay tariff under HT-I or HT-II commercial ?

3. Narrative of the events:-

(i) The Petitioner is a Government Company formed under The Indian Companies Act, 2013 to provide telecommunication services in India. The Respondent No.1 is a Distribution Licensee, authorised to provide electricity in the State of Maharashtra.

(ii) On 18th May 2007, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) disposed of Case No.65 of 2006 for determination of Annual Revenue Requirement of Respondent No.1-MSEDCL for the financial period 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 and for tariff for the financial year 2007-2008, in exercise of its powers vested under Sections 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “2003 Act”). In the said order, the issue relating to HT-Industrial Consumer categorisation is discussed. MERC observed that in the previous Tariff Order, HTP-I and HTP-II were combined into HTP-I category and further sub-classification was done in accordance with Section 62 (3) of the 2003 Act by classifying industrial consumers as continuous and non-continuous industries based on the nature of the industry as certified by the Industry Department of the State. The Commission also stated that in the said previous order it has observed that continuous industries would be charged the base tariff applicable for continuous industries, irrespective of whether they are connected to express feeder or non-express feeder. Against the said order, Respondent No.1-MSEDCL submitted that it was facing difficulties in implementing t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7183

Cases Referred (13)

Login now and unlock premium legal research