The Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd

2. It is not necessary for us to go into the detailed facts. Suffice it to say that the respondent company approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Commission") with the grievance that a demand notice dated 26.8.2002 issued by the Appellant's Wardha office be declared as illegal and may be set aside and quashed and the respondent company be permitted to avail power supply to the limit of 90 MVA without recovery of any additional charge either on account of service connection charges or the service line charges and to further direct the appellant herein to refund the amount of Rs. 227.9 lakhs so collected for re-instatement of the contract demand to the original level of 90 MVA along with interest @ 12% from the date of payment till the date of refund. The respondent company was a consumer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and originally they had a connection of 90 MVA which was subsequently reduced to 80 MVA and finally to 56 MVA on a request made by the company. Thereafter again they applied in June, 2002 for enhancement of their contract demand upto 90 MVA. Their request for enhancement of contract demand upto 90 MVA was granted though it was clearly mentioned in the order dated 12.8.2001 while reducing the contract demand to 56 MVA that in case enhancement of contract demand was subsequently required by the respondent company, it would attract payment of service line and other charges as per then prevailing conditions of supply. However, the regular supply of 90 MVA was restored on the request of the respondent company. The supply of 90 MVA was restored in June, 2002 and thereafter a demand was raised in terms of letter dated 02.08.2001 for service line charges, which was agreed to be paid by the respondent company, but in installments. Aggrieved against the said order the respondent- company filed a petition before the Commission on the ground that the demand of Rs.227.9 lakhs so raised for reinstatement of contract demand of 90 MVA is not proper. An objection was raised before the Commission that the Commission has no jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 42 of the Act and that the consumer should approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, if still aggrieved, the Ombudsman created under the Act for redressal of their grievances. The Commission over-ruled this objection by making a reference to some decision of the Bombay High Court and proceeded to assume jurisdiction and directed the refund of the aforesaid amount to the respondent company.

3. Aggrieved against the said order dated 18th October, 2005, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter for short "MSEDCL") approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity created under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 5th April, 2006 affirmed the order passed by the Commission. Thereafter a review petition was filed by the MSEDCL before the Appellate Tribunal, which was also rejected vide order dated 2nd June, 2006. Aggrieved against both these orders, the MSEDCL has approached this Court by the present appeal under Section 125 of the Act.

9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Commission as well as the Appellate Authority are unsustainable and they have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Commission has jurisdiction. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 18th October, 2005 passed by the Commission and the orders dated 5th April, 2006 and 2nd June, 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority and remit the matter to the proper Forum created under Section 42(5) of the Act to decide the grievance of the respondent herein in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the merits of the demand raised by the appellant upon the respondent company and it will be open for the proper forum to adjudicate the same. The payment, if any, made by the company will not operate as an estoppel against the respondent company. We hope that the forum will decide the matter expeditiously.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.