01Facts
The Appellant, BEST, is a local authority and distribution licensee in the Island City of Mumbai
p. 2Respondent No. 2 (TPC-D) was granted a parallel distribution license on 14.08.2014 for 25 years
p. 4TPC-D submitted a Network Rollout Plan for the areas overlapping with BEST, which the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) approved via a combined order dated 12.06.2017
p. 7This plan allowed TPC-D to develop its distribution network in two phases over a seven-year period
p. 16BEST challenged this order, contending that phased development violates the Universal Service Obligation (USO), encourages "cherry-picking" of high-end consumers, and creates an uneven playing field
p. 1102Issues
i.1. Whether the phased development of a distribution network over seven years is permitted under the Electricity Act, 2003 or if it contravenes the Universal Service Obligation under Section 43
p. 10 / para. 27ii.2. Whether the approved rollout plan violates the specific conditions of the distribution license granted to TPC-D
p. 21 / para. 40iii.3. Whether the MERC failed to consider practical difficulties and stranded assets in the approved consumer migration/switchover protocol
p. 24 / para. 4603Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 42(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandates licensees to develop an efficient and economical distribution system
p. 13It also applied Section 43, regarding the duty to supply electricity on request within stipulated timelines, acknowledging that such supply may require extensions of distribution mains
p. 14The 6th Proviso to Section 14 was cited regarding the grant of parallel licenses
p. 13The Tribunal relied on its own precedent in *Noida Power Company Limited v. PVVNL*, holding that laying an entire network is not a precondition for a license
p. 15The Supreme Court's ruling in *BEST v. MERC (2015) 2 SCC 438* regarding the exemption of local authorities from providing open access under Section 42(3)
p. 2504Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that Section 42(1) implies a continuous, progressive obligation to develop infrastructure rather than a one-time requirement to cover an entire area instantly
¶ 33The MERC’s two-phase approach—prioritizing areas with existing substations (Phase I) before expanding to new areas (Phase II)—was deemed an "optimal approach" to prevent scattered, unplanned development and "cherry-picking"
¶ 35-36The Tribunal noted that BEST’s challenge to the principle of phased development was barred by *res judicata* as the same issue was previously decided against them in Appeal No. 216 of 2014
¶ 33-34Regarding the migration protocol, the Tribunal found that the 3-day information-sharing window had functioned effectively since 2009 in other Mumbai sectors and that pending legal disputes cannot be used to block a consumer's right to switch licensees
¶ 51-53Finally, the "stranded assets" argument was rejected because the Electricity Act expressly permits competition and network duplication in the same area
¶ 5405Holding
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the MERC’s order dated 12.06.2017
p. 28Phased development of a distribution network is legally permissible and does not violate the USO under Section 43
¶ 33the rollout plan was consistent with TPC-D’s license conditions as it balanced cost-effectiveness with USO requirements
¶ 45the switchover protocol was valid, noting that as a local authority, BEST is not required to provide open access, making TPC-D’s network duplication an "inevitable statutory outcome"
¶ 54Original Court PDF
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BEST Undertaking) v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., Appeal No. 279 of 2017.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
