Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Shilpa Steel And Power Ltd. Nagpur ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.3997.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3997 OF 2016
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited,
Through the Superintending Engineer
(Nodal Officer), Nagpur Urban Circle,
Prakash Bhavan, Link Road,
Nagpur : 440 001. .... Petitioner
-- Versus -
01] Shilpa Steel & Power Limited,
through its Director Karan Bagariya,
1-4, Wanjara Layout, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur : 440 026.
02] The Electricity Ombudsman,
Plot No.12, "SHRIKRUPA", Vijay Nagar,
Chhaoni, Nagpur : 440 013
03] The Vice President,
S.N.D.L., Chhindwara Road,
Nagpur. .... Respondents
Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 18, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
02] Challenge in petition is to the order dated 22/01/2016
passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman/respondent no.2
in Representation No.100/2015 thereby setting aside the order
dated 03/07/2015 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum, Nagpur.
03] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in
brief as under :
i. Respondent no.1 is industrial consumer. On receipt of
Electricity Bill dated 04/04/2015 for the month of
March, 2015. Respondent no.1 filed a complaint
before Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) on
24/04/2015. The grievance of respondent no.1 before
IGRC was that the factory premises were being billed
at commercial tariff since beginning. As per the tariff
order dated 12/09/2010, Maharashtra Electricity
Regulatory Commission (MERC for short) clarified that
the consumer categorization should reflect the main
purpose of the consumer premises and the offices of
industries cannot be levied with commercial tariff.
Respondent no.1 claimed difference between
commercial tariff and industrial tariff for the period
from January, 2010 to March, 2015 amounting to
Rs.19,97,747/-. The complaint was rejected by IGRC
on 29/04/2015 on the ground that cause of action
arose in January, 2010 and in view of Clause 6.6 of the
MERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) complaint
not being filed within time was barred by limitation.
ii. Being aggrieved by the order of IGRC, respondent
no.1 filed grievance before the forum. Contention of
respondent no.1 before the forum was that Clause 6.6
of Regulations does not apply to IGRC but it applies to
forum and complaint was well within limitation. The
forum dismissed the grievance of respondents. The
order of forum was challenged by filing
representation. Vide order dated 22/01/2016,
representation came to be partly allowed and the
order of forum was set aside. Petitioners have been
directed to refund the difference between commercial
tariff and industrial tariff in respect of office premises
of respondent no.1 from 01/09/2010 to 31/03/2015
along with interest at the bank rate. It is this order,
which is the subject matter of present petition.
04] Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that
respondent no.1 did not challenge the tariff from January, 2010
till 24/04/2015. According to the learned Counsel, cause of
action for filing the complaint had arisen in January, 2010.
Referring to Clause 6.6 of the Regulations, it is submitted that
complaint being not filed within two years was barred by
limitation and IGRC and forum have rightly held that the
grievance of respondent no.1 was not within limitation.
05] The next submission on behalf of petitioner is that
respondent no.1 no where pleaded that it's office was merely an
administrative office and was not being used for sale of products
manufactured. There were separate meters and the meter for
office was also separate. The learned Counsel submits that in
view of this, consumer was not entitled to any relief.
06] The principal question in the present petition is
whether cause of action had arisen in January, 2010 or on
rejection of the grievance by IGRC. In this connection, Clause
6.6 of the Regulations would be relevant and the same is
reproduced here as under :
"6.6 The forum shall not admit any grievance unless
it is filed within two (2) years from the date on which
the cause of action has arisen."
07] Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 placed reliance
on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. &
others in Writ Petition No.9455/2011 and submitted that
cause of action for submitting grievance arose, when the IGRC
rejected the grievance of complainant.
08] On careful perusal of Clause 6.6 of the Regulations
and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
submission made on behalf of petitioner that cause of action
arose in January, 2010 is unsustainable. Respondent no.1 filed
complaint before IGRC on 24/04/2015. By its order dated
29/04/2015, IGRC rejected the grievance of respondent no.1.
The order of IGRC was challenged before forum on 08/05/2015.
It means from the date of rejection of complaint by IGRC,
grievance was filed before the forum within a month i.e. on
08/05/2015,. In this background, respondent no.2 has rightly
held that grievance of respondent no.1 was well within limitation,
as cause of action has arisen from the date of rejection of
grievance by IGRC.
09] Learned Counsel for petitioner then submitted that
direction in the impugned order to pay interest is not in
accordance with the Regulations. The petitioners have been
directed to pay interest on the amount to be refunded at bank
rate under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act from 01/09/2010
till realization. Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act reads thus :
"Section 62. (Determination of tariff) :
(6) If any licensee or a generating company
recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff
determined under this section, the excess amount
shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such
price or charge along with interest equivalent to the
bank rate without prejudice to any other liability
incurred by the licensee."
10] From the careful reading of sub-section 6 of Section
62 of the Electricity Act, it is apparent that if the generating
company recovers an excess amount from the consumer, the
said amount shall be recoverable by consumer along with
interest equivalent to the bank rate. From the communication
dated 26/05/2015 by the Nodal Officer of petitioner addressed to
the Member Secretary, Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Nagpur,
copy of which was sent to respondent no.1, it can be seen that in
view of MERC order dated 12/09/2010 and circular issued by the
Director Operations, MSEDCL, new tariff came to be
implemented with effect from 01/09/2010 and the commercial
consumption in the factory premises was to be charged as per
industrial tariff. The communication further indicates that
excess amount collected would be refunded through next
upcoming energy bills. In view of this, no fault can be found with
the order allowing interest on the amount to be refunded to
respondent no.1.
11] In the light of the above, it is clear that no
jurisdictional error has occurred in the impugned order. Writ
petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
I. Writ Petition No.3997/2016 stands dismissed.
II. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
