Before the
MAHARASHTRA
ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade Centre, Centre
No.1, 13th floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
CASE
No.18 of 2002
In
the matter of applications filed by
Electricity Consumers Association (ECA), Kanjurmarg,
Mumbai dated 6.8.2002, and Bombay Small Scale Industries Association (BSSIA),
Goregaon, Mumbai dated 26.8.2002 for action against MSEB having violated I.E.
Rules, 1956.
Shri
P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Shri Jayant Deo, Member
Dr Pramod Deo, Member
ORDER
Dated: January
07, 2003
The Commission has received two Petitions (i) Electricity Consumers Association (ECA), Kanjurmarg, Mumbai dated 6.8.2002, and (ii) Bombay Small Scale Industries Association (BSSIA), Goregaon, Mumbai dated 26.8.2002 on similar grounds in the matter of violation, misuse and abuse of rule 50(b)(ii) of Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and in respect of unreasonable, unnecessary and unwarranted purchase of Distribution box fitted with Single Pole Moulded Case Circuit Breaker (MCCB) in lieu of Distribution box fitted with Kit Kat fuses by MSEB authority.
2. The admissibility hearing, before the full Bench, was held on 27th November 2002. During the admissibility hearing the Applicant BSSIA, while explaining the background of their petitions, submitted that the design, drawings and housing arrangement of single pole MCCB in LT Distribution Box are not approved by the Chief Engineer (Electrical), PWD, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, who is the competent authority in the matter. The main issue is that the design of L.T Distribution Box procured by the Board, violates the provisions of rule 50(b)(ii) of IE Rules, 1956. A copy of the letter No.CE (Elec)Desk-4/342/2002 dated 6th September 2002 has been referred (attached with the petition) to justify this contention. .
3. Further,
the Applicant ECA submits that though the concept of distribution box provided
with single pole MCCB and Isolator has been introduced as a modern technology,
yet in reality, the entire purpose has been defeated [as indicated in page
5 of its petition]. The Applicant
further alleged that inspite of the MSEB’s in-house committee’s recommendations,
and also the non-approval of the design modifications by the Chief Electrical
Inspector, [the inference based on C.E. letter of dated 23.7.2002 addressed
to Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEB], the Board has awarded the contract
for the procurement of these equipments, to a group of 4/5 bidders.
4. In clarifying the queries as to how the
MSEB has breached any provision of the I.E. Rule, 1956, the Applicant referred
to Rule 50(b)(ii) of the IE Rules, 1956, which states as follows:
Quote
50(b) In
case of every transformer the following shall be provided:
50(b)(ii) On
the secondary side of transformers of capacity 100 KVA and above transforming
HV to MV or LV, a linked switch with fuse(s) or circuit breaker of adequate
capacity capable of carrying and breaking full load current and for transformers
transforming HV to EHV, as the case may be, a circuit breaker:
Provided that where the transformer
capacity exceeds 630 KVA a circuit breaker of adequate capacity shall be installed
on the secondary side.” Unquote
He submitted that the MSEB has not used linked switch
with fuse, thereby violating the rule and defeating the objective of safety
for both Distribution Transmission Centre (DTC) and person.
5. The
BSSIA has sought the Commission’s intervention through its submission of evidence
in the form of photographs in a newspaper (Times of India dated 5th
July 2002). The Applicant further submitted that such unnecessary, undesirable
and unwarranted purchases would only result in an increase in loss by the
Board, which in turn shall be passed on to the consumers by way of higher
tariff.
6. Shri
G.S. Limaye, SE (Works), MSEB submitted that the crux of the Applicants’ complaint
is to get the award of the tenders floated by the MSEB in respect of LT distribution
boxes set aside. The MSEB has been
purchasing and using the Distribution Box with Single Pole Moulded Case, Circuit
Breaker for the last ten years. Calling the tenders, etc., is within the administrative
jurisdiction of the Board and if any person is aggrieved by such actions of
the Board, the aggrieved person might seek appropriate legal remedy from a
Civil Court. Therefore, the Petitions
are not maintainable and be rejected.
7. The
Commission queried whether the Board has made any reply to the letter dated
23rd July 2002 of the CE (Elect.), PWD, and if so a copy of the
same be placed before the Commission. In
reply, Shri Limaye, referred to paras 2-5 of his affidavit dated 5th
October 2002. He further submitted that in 1965 itself the approval for the
method of construction and the drawing for the transformer installations,
etc., were obtained from the CE (Elect).
The Electrical Inspector does not go into the details of the distribution
boxes, except for the safety aspects, clearances, etc., which is provided
on the secondary side of the transformer.
Hence, the MSEB does not observe the practice of seeking routine approval
regularly from the Chief Engineer (Electrical), PWD. He further submitted
that one such approval was obtained in 1989, and submitted a copy of the said
letter dated 4th January 1989 from the CE (Elect.) in respect of
compliance of IE Rules 1956 for perusal of the Commission. In fact, he submitted that the letters relied
upon by the Applicants to base their allegation are (i) No.CE (Elec.)/Desk-4/308/2002
dated 14th August 2002 and (ii) No.342 dated 6th September
2002.
8. In
respect of the letter dated 23rd July 2002 from the CE (Elect.),
Shri Limaye submitted that matter was discussed with the officials from the
Chief Engineer (Electrical)’s office, when they visited the MSEB on 29th
July 2002 itself and all the related correspondences, including that of approval
letter dated 4th January 1989, were handed over to them. Therefore, it was felt that no separate communication
is required and their signatures were obtained on the said letter itself.
A copy of the letter was placed before the Commission for its perusal.
He submitted that a minor deviation in recent drawings has been proposed,
as the same is not approved. Except
for this, the MSEB does not see any non-observation of I.E. Rules.
9.
Further, in response to the Commission’s directive [refer para 14 of
Record of Proceedings], the MSEB vide its affidavit dated 24th
December 2002 submitted that “It is not mandatory to take approval, even
though the approval for the design of distribution box with linked switch
and moulded case circuit breaker was obtained from the Chief Engineer (Electrical),
PWD vide letter No. CE(E) Desk-3/10489 dated 4.1.1989.
… The Board has not made any
substantial modifications/changes in the drawings, which is approved by the
Chief engineer (Electrical) in the present distribution box.”
10. The
Commission observed that it is not the appropriate legal authority to seek
redressal of violation of I.E, Rules. It
further observed that the appropriate legal remedy for any person, seeking
relief in such administrative matters as procurement through public tenders
of the utility, is available in the form of Civil Court. Therefore, it does not see any merit in the
applicants approaching with Prayers as follows:
(i)
Chairman of MSEB may kindly be directed to recall its orders of purchasers
of Distribution box with single pole MCCB and rescind the resolution to that
effect.
(ii)
New tender to be called after getting the design and drawings approval
from the office of Chief Engineer (Electrical), PWD, Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai.
(iii)
A enquiry need to be made by a independent authority towards the whereabouts
of these stolen or missing parts fitted in the LT Distribution Box that were
worth about Rs.150 crores (Excluding left over empty distribution box of scrap
value).
11. The Commission declines to admit both of the following applications:
(i)
Electricity Consumers
Association (ECA), Kanjurmarg, Mumbai dated 6.8.2002,
(ii)
Bombay Small Scale
Industries Association (BSSIA), Goregaon, Mumbai dated 26.8.2002
Thus ordered.
| Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | |
| (Jayant Deo) | (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
|
| Member | Member | Chairman, MERC |
|
Sd/- |
|||
| (Sanjay Kumar) | |||
| Secretary, MERC | |||
|
|||