Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
13th
floor, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
Tel. 22163964 /
22163965, Fax No. 22163976
E-mail mercindia@mercindia.com
Website: www.mercindia.com
CASE No. 41 of 2002
In the matter of
Application dated 28th August 2002 filed by M/s Millennium Plastics,
Mumbai
regarding Discriminatory Provisions in the Conditions of Supply
prescribed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board
(MSEB) relating
to maximum limit on connected load for Low Tension power
supply.
Shri P. Subrahmanyam, Chairman
Shri Jayant Deo, Member
Dr Pramod Deo, Member
ORDER
Dated: March 11, 2003
. M/s Millennium
Plastics, Mumbai, 28, Nav Nandanvan Inds. Estate, Mulund (West), Mumbai have
petitioned the Commission on 28th August 2002, alleging “discriminatory
provisions in the Conditions of Supply of the Maharashtra State Electricity
Board (MSEB) relating to maximum limit on the connected load for obtaining Low
Tension power supply ”. The
admissibility hearing was held on 18th February 2003. The Commission heard both parties on 18th
February 2003 through their Counsel, and considered their written and oral
submissions.
2. The Petitioner is a
LT consumer of MSEB since February 2000, with connected load of 66 HP, and is
engaged in the manufacture of plastic articles. With a view to expansion, and after obtaining other clearances,
the Petitioner approached MSEB for increasing the connected load from 66 HP to
99 HP. However, under letter dated 13th
May 2002, MSEB informed the Petitioner that “as per CC No.624 dated
30.6.1999, Plastic Industries should avail supply on HT side only. The provision for availing HP load by the
industrial consumers at LT supply is not permissible for ice factory, cold
storage, plastic industries and chemical industries.”
3. Condition 28 of
MSEB’s Conditions of Supply provides that Low Tension (LT) Industrial Consumers such as engineering and other
industries could avail of LT supply upto 100 HP subject to the consumer
installing LT Maximum Demand Meter having the facility to record kVA demand
also, and would be billed as per the prevailing tariff rate. However, Ice Factories, Cold Storages,
Plastic Industries and Chemical Industries are specifically excluded from this
dispensation through an amendment in the Conditions of Supply effected in June
1999. The petitioner claims that, as a
result, an arbitrary discrimination was introduced between manufacturers of
plastic goods and other LT industrial consumers. Moreover, since those manufacturers of plastic goods who were
already availing of the LT tariff for connected load exceeding 67 HP and upto
100 HP were not required by MSEB to switch to HT supply, MSEB are also
discriminating between consumers using power for the same category of use. The new provisions were not applied even to
those manufacturers of plastic goods whose applications were pending at the
time of amendment to the Conditions of Supply.
4. The Petitioner
contends that such discrimination in an arbitrary manner between consumers of
the same class was bad in law. It also
places an additional financial burden on the Petitioner even in comparison with
otherwise similarly placed plastic goods manufacturers and other LT industries
with LT power supply upto 100 HP. He
also cited the discrimination persisting after taking over of the Thane
Electric Supply Company by MSEB.
Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that Section 49 of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 envisages that uniform provisions would be
prescribed regarding power supply, and undue preference cannot be shown to
certain consumers or class of consumers.
5. The Petitioner has
approached the Commission in view of the orders of the High Court temporarily
restraining MSEB from making any unilateral modifications in the existing
Conditions of Supply without reference to the Commission.
6. MSEB submitted that
Clause 28 of the Conditions of Supply prescribed the maximum limit of connected
load for power supply on LT as 67 HP.
However, the General Motive Power, i.e. industrial consumers had
represented that this provision be relaxed, and that the maximum limit of connected
load for power supply on LT be permitted upto 100 HP. It was contended that,
though the connected load of certain types of industries was more than 67 HP,
these industries do not require the entire load at one time and that,
therefore, the actual load at any given time does not exceed 67 HP (50 kVA) due
to low load factor. This argument was
accepted by MSEB, and the provisions of Clause 28 were amended in January 1996
to permit General Motive Power consumers the option to avail of power on LT upto
100 HP provided maximum demand does not exceed 50 kVA. MSEB have stated that, while implementing
these changes, they observed that the load factor of certain type of
industries, including plastic industries, is comparatively high (near unity). When such industries avail of LT power for
connected load exceeding 67 HP, the demand generally exceeds 50 kVA, which puts
a strain on the distribution network.
MSEB therefore further amended Clause 28 of the Conditions of Supply
with effect from 1.6.1999 (i.e. prior to the establishment of the Commission)
so as to exclude plastic and some other industries from the option to avail of
LT supply for connected loads exceeding 67 HP and upto 100 HP. MSEB submitted that the denial of
enhancement of connected load on LT to the Petitioner is strictly in accordance
with the amended Conditions of Supply.
It is open for the Petitioner to increase the connected load beyond 67
HP provided that such power supply is on HT.
7. Counsel for MSEB
also submitted that the Commission, in its Orders 5th May 2000 and
14th February 2001, has restrained MSEB from making changes in the
Conditions of Supply. Both these Orders
have been appealed against in the High Court, who have directed the Board not
to amend the Terms and Conditions without the Commission’s prior approval pending
disposal of the Appeals. The final
hearing of these Appeals has been concluded.
The judgement of the High Court is likely to be declared shortly.
8. MSEB have submitted
that the impugned amendment to the Conditions of Supply has been made after due
consideration of all legal and technical issues and cannot be termed as
arbitrary. As far as the discrimination
arising from the prospective application of the amendment to the Conditions of
Supply effected from 1.6.1999 is concerned, MSEB stated that retrospective
application to those plastic industries already availing of LT supply exceeding
67 HP would have been bad in law and would violate existing contractual
agreements between MSEB and these consumers.
The Conditions of Supply, which earlier covered other, similarly placed
consumers such as plastic industries, at the relevant time, were uniformly
applied to all such consumers prior to the amendment. Even after the amendment, the provisions have been uniformly
applied to all similarly placed consumers, but with prospective effect.
9. The Respondent,
MSEB, have clearly stated the reasons for treating certain categories on a
different footing while effecting the amendment to Clause 28 of
the Conditions of Supply with effect from 1.6.1999, and it cannot be
said that the amendment has been arbitrary.
Regarding the element of apparent discrimination arising from the
prospective application of the amendment, it is obvious that it could not have
been applied to existing consumers with connected load exceeding 67 HP in the
same category of industries. There is
no discrimination in the application of the amendment between plastic goods
industries applying for LT power supply exceeding 67 HP (upto 100 HP)
subsequent to 1.6.1999. The Commission,
therefore, finds no merit in the petition and dismisses it accordingly.
| (Jayant Deo) | (Dr Pramod Deo) | (P. Subrahmanyam) |
|
| Member | Member | Chairman, MERC |
|
| (A.M. Khan) | |||
| Secretary, MERC | |||
|
|||