W.A. No.957/2011 02.12.2011 This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the common order, dated 14-7-2011 passed in bunch of writ petitions. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent is a hard coke manufacturer and its unit admittedly, situate in a rural area in the District Chhindwara. The respondent has obtained Low Tension industrial connection with a demand upto 100 HP for running the industry. Since the establishment of the industry the respondent was paying the electricity charges as per rural tariff, however, sometime in the month of May, 2009 the appellant raised the demand on account of electricity on the basis of the tariff which was applicable to urban areas. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid demand the respondent filed a representation in which a prayer was made that the electricity charge be levied a per actual consumption. However, the representation submitted by the respondent failed to evoke any response. Eventually, the respondent approached this Court in filing the writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the respondent. However, the representation submitted by the respondent was rejected vide order dated 30-9-2009. In the aforesaid factual background the respondent filed the writ petition before the 1 learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14-7-2011 inter alia held that from perusal of the impugned letter, dated 3-7-2006 indicates that the appellant took a decision on its own to apply urban tariff to the rural consumers who were getting electricity supply from the urban feeder. It was further found by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 3-7-2006 which directs recovery from the respondent by applying urban tariff was issued without seeking approval of the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. Accordingly, the same was quashed. However, additional relief claimed by the respondents in W.P. Nos.12046/2010, 12048/2010, 12049/2010 and W.P. No.12050/2010 that they should be supplied electricity from rural feeder was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the industrial unit of the respondent was in rural area and it was getting electricity supply from urban feeder and, therefore, the appellant did not commit any error in raising the demand in respect of the electricity consumed by the respondent on the basis of the urban tariff. It was further submitted by him that there was no need to obtain approval from the Electricity Regulatory Commission. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the respondent whose industry is located in rural area was being supplied electricity from an urban feeder, is not enough for charging urban tariff. Learned counsel for the 2 appellant could not bring our notice that electricity was being supplied to the respondent industry which is situate in rural area from an urban feeder on the basis of request made by it. The fact that the electricity was being supplied to the respondent unit from urban feeder on its request has neither been pleaded in the counter affidavit nor was argued before the learned Single Judge and the same has not also been pleaded in the memorandum of appeal. Besides that the approval of the Regulatory Commission as required by para 1.8 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Methods and Principles of Fixation of Charges and Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges recoverable by Distribution Licensee) Regulations, 2005 has also not been obtained by the appellant before applying the urban tariff to the respondent. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (Alok Aradhe) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac. 3 4