Full Judgment Text
wp988.11.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NBO.988 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), (through its
Executive Engineer), O & M Division,
Malkapur.
... VERSUS ...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
Amravati Zone, Akola “Vidyut Bhavan”,
Ratanlal Plots, Akola – 444 001.
2. Shri Domaji s/o Samji Patel,
Aged Major, Occu: Business, Resident of
Shri Umiya Saw Mill (Nimgaon Phata),
Mukkam Post Nimgaon, Tq. Nandura,
Distt. Buldhana – 443404.
==================================
Mr.S.V.Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
==========================
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J.
th
DATED : 7 July, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable
forthwith and heard.
2. This petition takes exception to the order dated
6/12/2010 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 2
(CGRF), Amravati Zone, Akola, by which order the Consumer Forum
has directed the petitioner to provide the supply to the three
connections of the respondent herein from Nimgaon Gaothan Feeder
instead from existing agriculture Feeder within one month from the
date of the order.
3. A few facts, which are necessary to be cited for the
adjudication of the above petition are stated thus
The respondent no.2 is the consumer of the petitioner –
Company and running a Saw Mill. The respondent is having three
connections at Nimgaon, and Industrial connection is provided for
purpose of the Saw Mill. The respondent is getting supply from
Agriculture Feeder since inception, the Gaothan Feeder came to be
commissioned on 23/9/2009. Since there is load shedding and low
voltage supply, the respondent was desirous of getting the supply
from the Gaothan Feeder and accordingly made oral as well as
written requests to the officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) to provide supply from the
Gaothan Feeder. It is the case of the respondent that he is entitled
to get the supply under what is known as “Gaothan Separation
Feeder Scheme”.
4. The respondent no.2 with the said grievance that he
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 3
should be provided with the Gaothan Separation Feeder Scheme
approached IGR Cell Buldhana but on getting no relief approached
the CGRF, Amravati Zone, Akola. The relief sought by the
respondent was that the CGRF should order the petitioner i.e. the
MSEDCL, Malkapur to provide supply from the Gaothan Feeder
instead of the from agriculture Feeder and to award compensation of
Rs.1,80,000/ for financial loss and mental pain.
5. To the application filed by the respondent no.2 before the
CGRF, the petitioner herein filed its reply after the receiving notice
issued by the Forum. The petitioner stated that the Gaothan Feeder
Separation Scheme (GFSS) has been implemented by the petitioner,
the object being that the people residing in the villages should get
supply in the same manner as the supply which is provided to Urban
Consumers. It was further stated in the said reply that the location
of the three connections is about 1 km. away from Nimgaon village
and therefore, it was not possible to include the said connections in
the Scheme and therefore they are not connected to the Gaothan
Feeder. It was further stated that in order to provide supply from
Gaothan Feeder to the respondent no.2, it is necessary to lay LT
electric line but as there was no provision for the same in the
Scheme, it was not possible to provide supply from Gaothan Feeder.
It was lastly stated that if the consumer consents and spends for
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 4
erection of lines, it would be possible to get the estimate sanctioned
and supply could be provided from the Gaothan Feeder.
6. The CGRF considered the said grievance of the
respondent no.2 and relying upon the contradictions in the statement
purportedly made on behalf of the Officer of the petitioner, namely;
to the effect that if the consumer is ready to incur the expenditure for
erection of electric lines, the supply would be provided from Gaothan
Feeder instead of Agriculture Feeder, which the CGRF found to be
contrary to the case of the petitioner that the premises in questions
were outside the Gaothan and therefore could not be supplied to the
Gaothan Feeder. From the said statement of the Officer of the
petitioner, CGRF inferred that under the CGRF Scheme there is
provision to provide supply from Gaothan Feeder to the Industry
situated outside the Gaothan area.
7. In so far as the issue whether the respondent no.2 was
situated within the Gaothan area, the CGRF referred to the
Certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records,
Nandura. It has been stated in the said certificate that the premises
situated in Gat No.831 were outside the Gaothan area. The CGRF on
the said basis concluded that if the purpose of the Scheme is that the
consumer of the Rural area (other than agriculture connection)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 5
should get supply as consumers of Urban area are getting, with
similar load shedding, the supply from Gaothan Feeder to the
Respondent no.2 will have to be provided at the cost of MSEDCL and
the consumer cannot be required to spend for infrastructure as
submitted by the Executive Engineer of the petitioner.
8. It is required to be noted that the above view of the CGRF
was a majority view of the two members whereas the Single Member
deferred from the said view and held that the respondent though can
be provided supply from Gaothan Feeder would have to bear the
expenses for erection of the LT electric line. The dissenting member
relied upon Regulation 3.3.4 of the Regulations in question.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Arguments/submissions were made by the learned
counsel for the parties in support and in opposition to the impugned
order dated 5/12/2010. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner
that though the respondent no.2 can be provided a dedicated Feeder
service from the Gaothan Feeder, the respondent would have to bear
the expenses for the same as the costs of laying the infrastructure in
terms of the Regulations have to be borne by the consumer.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 6
11. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.2 that since the respondent no.2 is
situated outside the Gaothan, he would be entitled to the CGRF
Scheme, as supply is from the same Feeder and no separate line is
required to be laid for the benefit of the respondent. The learned
Counsel relied upon the proviso to Regulation 3.3.4 of the said
Regulation in support of his said submission. The said Regulation
3.3.4 and the provisos are reproduced hereunder.
3.3.4. Where the provision of supply to an applicant
entails works, not being works referred to in
Regulation 3.3.2 or Regulation 3.3.3 above, for
augmentation of the distribution system, the
Distribution Licensee shall be authorized to recover
from the applicant such proportion of the expenses
reasonably incurred non such works as the load
applied for bears to the incremental capacity that
will be created by augmentation of the distribution
system:
Provided that, where the load applied for does
not exceed 25 per cent of the capacity that will be
created by augmentation of the distribution system,
the Distribution Licensee shall not be entitled to
recover any expenses under this Regulation 3.3.4 :
Provided further that, any dispute with regard to
the need for and extent of augmentation of the
distribution system under this Regulation 3.3.4 shall
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 7
be determined in accordance with the procedure set
out in the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Regulations.
12. In my view, considering the material on record namely;
the certificate of the District Inspector of land records it is clear that
the Saw Mill of the respondent no.2 is situated outside the Gaothan.
It is required to be noted that the Gaothan Feeder Supply Scheme
(GFSS) has been commissioned only with a view to mitigate the
grievance of the villagers, as far as the supply of electricity is
concerned, so as to bring them on par with the consumers in the
Urban area, any supply from the said Gaothan Feeder to the
respondent would, therefore, require a dedicated line to be installed
for which expenditure in terms of the regulation, which has been
quoted in the dissenting order, has to be borne by the respondent.
In my view, in the facts of the present case wherein supply is to be
provided for a saw mill the reliance placed by the learned Counsel
for the respondent no.2 on the proviso to the said Regulation 3.3.4 is
misplaced.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
issue as to whether the Distribution Company can recover the
expenses in so far as the consumers of the kind, to which the
respondent herein belongs, is subjudiced before the Apex Court and
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 8
the payment therefore, even if made by the respondent for the said
dedicated supply, would be contingent upon the decision of the Apex
Court.
14. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated
6/12/2010 would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
However, it is made clear that if the respondent no.2 desires to have
a dedicated supply to his Saw Mill, which is outside the Gaothan, the
same would be provided, as has been stated on behalf of the
petitioner – Company before the CGRF, at the costs of the
respondent. In the event, the said cost of the infrastructure is paid
by the respondent, needless to say that the same would be subject to
the outcome of the proceedings in the Apex Court.
Rule is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
chute
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NBO.988 OF 2011.
PETITIONER: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd. (MSEDCL), (through its
Executive Engineer), O & M Division,
Malkapur.
... VERSUS ...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
Amravati Zone, Akola “Vidyut Bhavan”,
Ratanlal Plots, Akola – 444 001.
2. Shri Domaji s/o Samji Patel,
Aged Major, Occu: Business, Resident of
Shri Umiya Saw Mill (Nimgaon Phata),
Mukkam Post Nimgaon, Tq. Nandura,
Distt. Buldhana – 443404.
==================================
Mr.S.V.Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
==========================
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J.
th
DATED : 7 July, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable
forthwith and heard.
2. This petition takes exception to the order dated
6/12/2010 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 2
(CGRF), Amravati Zone, Akola, by which order the Consumer Forum
has directed the petitioner to provide the supply to the three
connections of the respondent herein from Nimgaon Gaothan Feeder
instead from existing agriculture Feeder within one month from the
date of the order.
3. A few facts, which are necessary to be cited for the
adjudication of the above petition are stated thus
The respondent no.2 is the consumer of the petitioner –
Company and running a Saw Mill. The respondent is having three
connections at Nimgaon, and Industrial connection is provided for
purpose of the Saw Mill. The respondent is getting supply from
Agriculture Feeder since inception, the Gaothan Feeder came to be
commissioned on 23/9/2009. Since there is load shedding and low
voltage supply, the respondent was desirous of getting the supply
from the Gaothan Feeder and accordingly made oral as well as
written requests to the officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) to provide supply from the
Gaothan Feeder. It is the case of the respondent that he is entitled
to get the supply under what is known as “Gaothan Separation
Feeder Scheme”.
4. The respondent no.2 with the said grievance that he
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 3
should be provided with the Gaothan Separation Feeder Scheme
approached IGR Cell Buldhana but on getting no relief approached
the CGRF, Amravati Zone, Akola. The relief sought by the
respondent was that the CGRF should order the petitioner i.e. the
MSEDCL, Malkapur to provide supply from the Gaothan Feeder
instead of the from agriculture Feeder and to award compensation of
Rs.1,80,000/ for financial loss and mental pain.
5. To the application filed by the respondent no.2 before the
CGRF, the petitioner herein filed its reply after the receiving notice
issued by the Forum. The petitioner stated that the Gaothan Feeder
Separation Scheme (GFSS) has been implemented by the petitioner,
the object being that the people residing in the villages should get
supply in the same manner as the supply which is provided to Urban
Consumers. It was further stated in the said reply that the location
of the three connections is about 1 km. away from Nimgaon village
and therefore, it was not possible to include the said connections in
the Scheme and therefore they are not connected to the Gaothan
Feeder. It was further stated that in order to provide supply from
Gaothan Feeder to the respondent no.2, it is necessary to lay LT
electric line but as there was no provision for the same in the
Scheme, it was not possible to provide supply from Gaothan Feeder.
It was lastly stated that if the consumer consents and spends for
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 4
erection of lines, it would be possible to get the estimate sanctioned
and supply could be provided from the Gaothan Feeder.
6. The CGRF considered the said grievance of the
respondent no.2 and relying upon the contradictions in the statement
purportedly made on behalf of the Officer of the petitioner, namely;
to the effect that if the consumer is ready to incur the expenditure for
erection of electric lines, the supply would be provided from Gaothan
Feeder instead of Agriculture Feeder, which the CGRF found to be
contrary to the case of the petitioner that the premises in questions
were outside the Gaothan and therefore could not be supplied to the
Gaothan Feeder. From the said statement of the Officer of the
petitioner, CGRF inferred that under the CGRF Scheme there is
provision to provide supply from Gaothan Feeder to the Industry
situated outside the Gaothan area.
7. In so far as the issue whether the respondent no.2 was
situated within the Gaothan area, the CGRF referred to the
Certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records,
Nandura. It has been stated in the said certificate that the premises
situated in Gat No.831 were outside the Gaothan area. The CGRF on
the said basis concluded that if the purpose of the Scheme is that the
consumer of the Rural area (other than agriculture connection)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 5
should get supply as consumers of Urban area are getting, with
similar load shedding, the supply from Gaothan Feeder to the
Respondent no.2 will have to be provided at the cost of MSEDCL and
the consumer cannot be required to spend for infrastructure as
submitted by the Executive Engineer of the petitioner.
8. It is required to be noted that the above view of the CGRF
was a majority view of the two members whereas the Single Member
deferred from the said view and held that the respondent though can
be provided supply from Gaothan Feeder would have to bear the
expenses for erection of the LT electric line. The dissenting member
relied upon Regulation 3.3.4 of the Regulations in question.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Arguments/submissions were made by the learned
counsel for the parties in support and in opposition to the impugned
order dated 5/12/2010. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner
that though the respondent no.2 can be provided a dedicated Feeder
service from the Gaothan Feeder, the respondent would have to bear
the expenses for the same as the costs of laying the infrastructure in
terms of the Regulations have to be borne by the consumer.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 6
11. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.2 that since the respondent no.2 is
situated outside the Gaothan, he would be entitled to the CGRF
Scheme, as supply is from the same Feeder and no separate line is
required to be laid for the benefit of the respondent. The learned
Counsel relied upon the proviso to Regulation 3.3.4 of the said
Regulation in support of his said submission. The said Regulation
3.3.4 and the provisos are reproduced hereunder.
3.3.4. Where the provision of supply to an applicant
entails works, not being works referred to in
Regulation 3.3.2 or Regulation 3.3.3 above, for
augmentation of the distribution system, the
Distribution Licensee shall be authorized to recover
from the applicant such proportion of the expenses
reasonably incurred non such works as the load
applied for bears to the incremental capacity that
will be created by augmentation of the distribution
system:
Provided that, where the load applied for does
not exceed 25 per cent of the capacity that will be
created by augmentation of the distribution system,
the Distribution Licensee shall not be entitled to
recover any expenses under this Regulation 3.3.4 :
Provided further that, any dispute with regard to
the need for and extent of augmentation of the
distribution system under this Regulation 3.3.4 shall
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 7
be determined in accordance with the procedure set
out in the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Regulations.
12. In my view, considering the material on record namely;
the certificate of the District Inspector of land records it is clear that
the Saw Mill of the respondent no.2 is situated outside the Gaothan.
It is required to be noted that the Gaothan Feeder Supply Scheme
(GFSS) has been commissioned only with a view to mitigate the
grievance of the villagers, as far as the supply of electricity is
concerned, so as to bring them on par with the consumers in the
Urban area, any supply from the said Gaothan Feeder to the
respondent would, therefore, require a dedicated line to be installed
for which expenditure in terms of the regulation, which has been
quoted in the dissenting order, has to be borne by the respondent.
In my view, in the facts of the present case wherein supply is to be
provided for a saw mill the reliance placed by the learned Counsel
for the respondent no.2 on the proviso to the said Regulation 3.3.4 is
misplaced.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
issue as to whether the Distribution Company can recover the
expenses in so far as the consumers of the kind, to which the
respondent herein belongs, is subjudiced before the Apex Court and
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::
wp988.11.odt 8
the payment therefore, even if made by the respondent for the said
dedicated supply, would be contingent upon the decision of the Apex
Court.
14. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated
6/12/2010 would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
However, it is made clear that if the respondent no.2 desires to have
a dedicated supply to his Saw Mill, which is outside the Gaothan, the
same would be provided, as has been stated on behalf of the
petitioner – Company before the CGRF, at the costs of the
respondent. In the event, the said cost of the infrastructure is paid
by the respondent, needless to say that the same would be subject to
the outcome of the proceedings in the Apex Court.
Rule is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
chute
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:03:32 :::