World Trade
Center, Centre No. 1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005.
IN THE MATTER OF
APPLICATION FILED by M/s Rani Sati Rice Mill, Gondia, on
Optional
Treatment proposed by the Commission in case of LTPG Consumers
and not to force
on them the MD based tariff,
as provided for
in the original Tariff Order dated 5th May 2000.
Shri Venkat
Chary, Member
Shri Jayant Deo,
Member
The
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), in exercise of the powers
vested in it under Section 29 of the electricity Regulatory Commissions Act,
1998 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, has, vide its Order
dated May 05, 2000 in Case No.1 of 1999, determined the tariff for supply of
electricity after considering the proposal submitted by the Maharashtra State
Electricity Board (MSEB).
2. The MSEB has filed
an application on 9th August 2000 under Regulation 87 of the MERC
(Conduct of Business) regulations, 1999 for a review of the Order dated 5th
May 2000. After completion of the
Public Hearing procedures, the Commission delivered its Review Order on 13th
December 2000 in Case No.1 of 1999.
3. Further, on the
Applications of (i) M/s Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce & Industries,
Mumbai [Case No.10] and (ii) Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune [Case
No.11], in the matter of validity of the Commercial Circulars and the Clauses
of Conditions & Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy
issued by the MSEB without prior approval of the MERC, the Commission also
passed its Order dated 14th February 2001.
4. The MERC received
applications dated 24th December 2001 from M/s Rani Sati Rice Mill,
Gondia requesting the MERC to intervene and direct the MSEB to supply
electricity to them as per the guidelines and rates prescribed by the MERC vide
its tariff order dated 5th May 2000 and also the Terms and
Conditions of Supply of the MSEB.
5. Meanwhile, while the
above application was under process, the Applicant submitted his further
affidavit dated 30.1.2002 under Regulation 83 of the MERC (Conduct of
Businesses) Regulations, 1999 to protest against the notice served by the
Respondent on 14th January 2002 and requesting for speedy disposal of the
earlier suit filed before the Commission.
6. The Commission,
before admitting the application for hearing, obtained parawise remarks from
the MSEB [MSEB letter No.PR-3/Tariff/MERC/2042 dated 16th
January, 2002], a copy of which was forwarded to the Applicant for its
rejoinders, if any. Accordingly, the
Applicant submitted his rejoinder to the MSEB’s reply during the hearing held
on 20th February 2002.
7. Shri Pramod Kumar H.
Agarwal, proprietor, M/s Rani Sati Rice Mill, Gondia, Applicant himself
presented the Case before the Commission on 20th February 2002. During the hearing he submitted a copy of
his written notes of arguments in context with the 'Conditions of Supply'
of the MSEB. The Applicant submitted that
they are from the Rice Milling Industry with a sanctioned load of 67 HP / 50
KVA under LT Consumer Category.
8. During the
proceedings, the Applicant submitted that his application has been made under
Regulation 83 of the MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 with the
following prayers:
(i)
Not to
apply MD based tariff on LT consumers in the absence of an option for the same
from the consumer as per the MERC Order in Case No. 10 and 11 and the Tariff
Order dated 5.5.2000.
(ii)
To correct all the bills issued on the basis
of MD based tariff and to restore the earlier billing pattern.
(iii)
To bring uniformity in the application of
tariffs to the same category of consumers, common meters should be installed
and thereafter the common and uniform tariff should be applied to all the LT
consumers
(iv)
To apply LT tariff on consumers with L.T.
supply, and
(v)
Not to apply HTP-II tariff application to LTPG
consumers.
9. The Applicant
further submitted that, till 16th August 2001, the MSEB was billing
the consumer under the Consumer Category of LTPG based on the sanctioned load.
After that, the MSEB installed the new MD Meter and allotted a new Consumer No.
430019051890 to it and had started billing accordingly. The Applicant has objected to this change
and submitted that the MSEB has changed its category without the applicant’s
permission. The applicant has strongly
protested against the installation of the MD Meter. The Applicant further submitted that it has clearly informed the
MSEB, vide its letter dated 16.08.2001, that it is satisfied with the
originally installed meter and is not interested in the MD Meter &MD based
tariff.
10. The Applicant further submitted that:
[a] The
MSEB sent the notice No.SEBHR/TECH/1-1/260 dated 14th January 2002,
during the pendency of the said application, to the Applicants for the payment
of Rs.2,32,850/- towards Service
Connection charges, Service Line Charges, Additional Security Deposits for
availing the Electric Supply on 11 KV, which is in violation of the directives
of the Commission. He further submitted
that the Rice Mill industries are in the small-scale category and are now in a
difficult situation; hence, they cannot
pay such a high tariff. He further
submitted that if the consumer exceeds 50 KVA of demand even for the first
time, the respondent is applying HTP tariff on the LT consumers. The MSEB is
also arbitrarily charging penalty on fixed charges whereas, according to its
own Commercial Circular No.636, the same can't be charged without intimating
the consumer beforehand through a legal notice.
[b] The Applicant
submitted that as per clause 28 of the Condition of Supply, the L.T. general
motive power consumer can avail a L.T. supply upto 100 HP and as per clause
28(2)(iii) upto 50 KVA demand, the consumer will have to pay the energy bill as
per the LT tariff applicable from time to time and, in case he exceeds 50 KVA,
then, for the excess MD recorded over and above 50 KVA, the prevailing penalty
oriented demand charges will be recovered.
The issuance of Departmental Circular No.636 dated 20.01.2001 is
in contravention with the 'Conditions of Supply'. He pointed out that as per Condition No.28
(2) and 31 (f) (I) (II) of the Conditions of Supply, the Respondent already has
the authority to collect the penal charges from the consumer for the
unauthorised connected load and, therefore, insertion of Circular No.636 dated
20.1.2001 can be treated as an `amendment to the existing provisions of the
supply’. He further submitted that
this circular No.636 is a part of the tariff application and, therefore,
implementation of this circular without the prior approval of the Commission is
a violation of the Commission’s directives.
He cited the Commission’s Order dated February 14, 2001 in Case Nos.10
and 11. He further submitted that the
said circular No.636 is also in contravention of the Commission’s Order dated
10th January 2002.
The Board is
attempting to misinterpret the provisions of its own commercial circular in
light of the Commission’s Order and forcefully applying MD based tariff to LTPG
consumers without giving the liberty to the consumer to opt for MD based tariff
as envisaged in the Tariff Order.
[c] The Applicant
brought to the notice of the Commission that the Board’s submission on
withdrawal of Commercial Circular No.636 and instruction of withdrawal vide
Commercial Circular 666 dated 2.1.2002, is misleading, as even after 2.1.2002,
the Respondent through the Supdt Engineer, Bhandara, has resorted to serve
notice, which is illegal, as referred to earlier in point No.[a] above. He further mentioned that most of the
consumers for whom LTMD meters have been put up without giving them the
opportunity to exercise option are presently receiving bills as per HTP-II
tariff application.
[d] The Applicant
submitted that it has objected to the installation of the MD meter and also not
demanded extension of load above 50KVA/KW nor the MD based tariff. The Board has also failed to provide any
calibration certificate, test report, meter specification, etc., to the Applicant
while replacing the meter. The Board has attempted to forcefully apply MD based
Tariff to LT-Consumers without obtaining any option for the same from the
consumers. The Applicant further
submitted that the field staff of the MSEB is also not aware of the details of
the MD meters, PF, Incentives, etc., and appropriate training has to be
imparted to the field staff for better implementation of the scheme / orders /
directives of the Commission and/or the MSEB itself.
[e] With reference to
the para 16 of the MSEB’s reply No.PR-3/Tariff/MERC/2042 dated 16.1.2002, the
Applicant has strongly protested against the false submission by the Respondent
that the meter was installed on 16.08.2000.
He submitted that the meter was installed on 16.08.2001only.
[f] The MD meter was
installed in the Applicant’s premises after the pronouncement of the
above-referred order. The MD based
tariff application is made applicable immediately after the installation of the
meter. They objected to the application
of MD based tariff as being violative of the above referred order. It is needless to change the billing format
in the absence of the option for the MD based tariff application. He cited the
Commission’s Order dated 14.2.2001 in Case No. 10 and 11 of 2000 wherein this
Commission directed that "MSEB must not force MD based tariff on LTPG
consumers but treat it as optional as provided for in the original
tariff order dated 5.5.2000".
[g] He further submitted
with reference to the Para-17 of the reply of the MSEB, the Board’s decision to
treat a consumer, as deemed HT consumer even if the demand exceeds by 0.50 KVA
is not a justified submission made by the Board. There is no such provision of giving the deemed status of HT consumer
to LTPG consumers in the Board’s Conditions of Supply.
[h] Billing format for
H.T. Consumer is used for billing to LT Consumers. The consumer number is changed and the connection is treated as a
fresh connection. Earlier, the billing
defects were rectified at the Divisional Office and, with the application of
the MD based tariff the billing defects are rectified at the Circle office and
same is causing inconvenience to them and to other consumers also. "The
power factor penalty and the demand penalty were recovered which is not as per
the Tariff Order dated 5.5.2000".
11. During the
Proceedings on 20th February 2002, the MSEB Counsel submitted that,
with respect of prayers (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the Applicant, it is not
contesting the arguments put forward by the Applicant. Further, his submissions
should be viewed as merely stating the factual position vis-à-vis the MSEB’s
corrective action already initiated in this matter. However, on prayer (iii) of the Applicant, he submitted that,
without any prejudice to his client’s right to contest in front of appropriate
authorities, it would not be logistically and financially viable to remove the
already replaced meters from the consumers’ premises belonging to the LTPG
category as that will result in financial loss to the Board.
12. With regard to the
Commercial Circular No.636, the Counsel further clarified that the Board had
earlier proposed to withdraw this particular Commercial Circular, for which
permission was sought from the Commission vide letter No.PR-3/COS/4058
dated 1st February 2002.
This was mentioned during the explanatory meeting on the above subject
called by the Commission on 4th
February 2002.
13. On a query from the
Commission as to why the MD meters have been
installed at all when such consumers have not opted for it, the MSEB
Counsel submitted that the Board has submitted a proposal before the Commission
for permission to withdraw the circular No.636 and 666.
14. The Commission
observed that the question of giving permission to withdraw an illegal circular
does not arise at all. What is
happening in the field is that the consumers are harassed on account of wrong
interpretation and improper implementation of the directives contained in its
various circulars of the Board itself.
The best course of action is to maintain the status- quo in the matter
till the High Court decision in the matter of the MSEB’s appeal No.218 and 106
is delivered. The MSEB may remove the
new MD meters wherever installed at its own cost.
15. The Commission also
observed that, as directed earlier, the Board should immediately initiate an
action plan to update its own booklet containing Terms & Conditions of
Supply ensuring that it is properly worded, including legal aspects under the
IE Act, 1910 / E (S) Act 1948 r/w ERC Act 1998 and various Departmental
Commercial Circulars and make it available to all its field level offices and
interested consumers to avoid recurrence of such type of complaints.
16. The Commission
directed the MSEB that to submit an undertaking in line with the above to the
Commission for its approval. In
conclusion, the Commission observed that the Respondent has acted in
contravention of the Commission’s directives from time to time and, hence, the
prayers of the Petitioner are granted, with MSEB submitting no contest except
prayer No.(iii).
17. The Counsel of the
Respondent submitted that, with respect to prayer No.(iii), he will seek his
client’s advice and, accordingly, keep informed the Commission for appropriate
direction.
18. Keeping the above in
mind, the Commission hereby directs that:
(i)
All prayers of the Applicant be granted except
prayer No.(iii)
(ii)
The MSEB to maintain the status-quo in respect
of LTMD meters pertaining to the Applicant.
(iii)
The MSEB will strictly apply the provisions of
the MERC Tariff Orders including the latest Order dated 10th January
2002, directing that “the MSEB should bill all consumers supplied at LT
level in this category as per LTPG or LTMD tariff as applicable” [Refer
section 49 / page 14 of the Tariff Order dated 10th Jan. 2002].
(iv)
The MSEB shall clearly address all its LTPG
consumers, while sending its next bill, offering the option of LTPG or LTMD
tariff with a deadline for the consumer to intimate its option on or before May
31, 2002.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Venkat Chary) (Jayant Deo) (P. Subrahmanyam)
Member Member Chairman,
MERC
Sd/-
(Sanjay
Kumar)
Secretary,
MERC
Note:
Reference: Remarks
of the commission at 7/N and 9/N
The final Order in
the matter Application by M/s Rani Sati Rice Mill, Gondia, on
Optional Treatment proposed by the Commission in case of LTPG
Consumers and not to force on them the MD based tariff, as provided for in the
original Tariff Order dated 5th May 2000, is put up for signature.
(M.K. Kundu)
1.4.2002
Secretary, MERC
Member (Shri D)
Member (Shri C)
Chairman, MERC