AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
R.M.Chhaya, J",,,
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.,,,
464 of 2013, the appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.",,,
The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal Â,,,
2.1 The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting and",,,
selling of grey jeansÂdenims and marketing of readymade fashion garments with brand name of DEXTASE. It is the case of the appellant that it has,,,
also set up 12 wind turbine generation and it generates 18 M.W. electric energy. It is also the case of the appellant company that it has financed the,,,
wind energy project in foreign currency convertible bonds to the tune of USD 20 millions in the year 2007Â2008. The case of the appellant is that it,,,
has four manufacturing plants out of which two are situated and located in the city of Ahmedabad and the same falls under the distribution license of,,,
Torrent Power Ltd. for which it has two separate electric HT service bearing H.T. Service Nos. 704 and 973.,,,
2.2 It is further the case of the appellant petitioner that the appellant has set up a manufacturing plant at SarkhejÂBawla Road and upon land,,,
bearing Survey No. 215/217 situated at village Sari, Taluka Sanand and the said unit is known as unit no. 2 of the appellant Company. The appellant",,,
Company has H.T. Electric connection bearing connection no. 17312 which was granted by the respondent Electric Company on 08.08.1995. It is the,,,
case of the appellant that in order to mordernise the plant of denim fabrics and its spinning, it decided to have separate manufacturing plant on the land",,,
bearing survey no. 212/2, 212/3, 212/4 of village Sari and the said unit is known as unit no.4. It is the say of the appellant that the said land was",,,
purchased by the appellant Company in the year 2005.,,,
2.3 The record indicates that the appellant company applied for fresh HT electric connection vide application dated 11.01.2012 and paid necessary,,,
registration charges on 13.01.2012. The record indicates that on receipt of such an application, the authorities of the respondent electricity Company",,,
by a communication dated 16.01.2012 raised certain queries which was replied to by the appellant on 13.02.2012. The record indicates that ultimately,",,,
the estimate was given by the respondent electricity company to the tune of Rs.1,61,37,084/Â and ultimately the HT electric connection no. 18564 was",,,
released by the respondent electricity company.,,,
2.4 As per the say of the appellant, by a communication dated 03.09.2012 issued by the authority of the respondent electricity company, the",,,
respondent no.2 herein, the appellant was asked to submit documents with regard to separate entity and certain queries were raised in relation to HT",,,
Connection No. 17312 and HT connection no. 18564, which stands in the name of the appellant Company. The said communication also pointed out",,,
that as per clause 4.1.17 of the Electric Supply Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Codeâ€) the licensee cannot provide more than one,,,
connection/meter for one premises and the consumers opting for second meter has to produce separate legal entity such as separate income tax pan,,,
number/sales tax number etc. The appellant gave explanation to the same by communication dated 21.09.2012. It is the case of the appellant that by a,,,
communication dated 08.10.2012, without calling upon the appellant and without referring to the explanation and documents of separate legal entity,",,,
submitted by the appellant, and in violation of principles of natural justice and equity, took unilateral decision of merger of H.T. Connections and also",,,
threatened the appellant of disconnection of electricity supply. The said notice which is impugned in the present proceedings was replied by the,,,
appellant by reply dated 25.10.2012. It is the case of the appellant that for the first time the aspect of revenue loss was put forward by the respondent,,,
authorities and reiterated that the action shall be taken as +per the notice dated 08.10.2012. The said decision was impugned in the petition wherein,,,
the petitioner has prayed as under Â,,,
“A. Your Lordship be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned notice as at annexureÂL to this petition vide Ref. No.,,,
UGVCL/REGD/COM/2246 dated 07/11/2012 consequent upon the notices vide Ref. No.:UGVCL/BPL/T/HT/7583 dated 03/09/2012 and vide Ref.,,,
No: UGVCL/BPL/TECH./HT.8659 dated 08/10/2012 respectively, issued by the respondents are bad in law and without authority and be pleased to",,,
order to quash and set aside the same declaring it to be illegal and without authority.,,,
B. Be please to issue a writ of mandamus, orders directions, directing the respondents no: 1, 2 and 3 not to enforce, implement the demand/directions",,,
contained in the impugned notice as at annexureâ€L†to thispetitionvideRef.No. UGVCL/REGD/COM/2246dated07/11/2012 consequent upon, vide",,,
Ref. No.:UGVCL/BPL/T/HT/7583 dated 03/09/2012 and vide Ref. No: UGVCL/BPL/TECH./HT.8659 dated 08/10/2012 respectively, issued by the",,,
respondents.,,,
Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP BE PLEASED to;",,,
C. Restrained the respondents, their servants and agents from disconnecting the Electric Supply bearing H.T. No: 18564 for the reasons of nonÂ‐",,,
compliance of the demand contained in the impugned notices as at annexure “L†to this petition vide Ref. No. UGVCL/REGD/COM/2246 dated,,,
07/11/2012 consequent upon, vide Ref. No.:UGVCL/BPL/T/HT/7583 dated 03/09/2012 and vide Ref. No: UGVCL/BPL/TECH./HT.8659 dated",,,
08/10/2012 respectively, issued by the respondents.â€",,,
The appellant also relied upon the provisions of clause 4.1.17 of the Code.,,,
The respondent electricity company filed reply and the same was also controverted by the appellantÂorig. Petitioner by way of filing rejoinder. By,,,
way of an additional affidavit, the appellant brought on record of the petition the order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the GERC in Petition No. 1291 of",,,
2013.,,,
Relying upon the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 61 of Part VII of the Act of 2003, it was contended by the appellant orig.",,,
Petitioner that if the said provisions are read with section 42 of the Act of 2003, the action on the part of the respondent electricity company refusing",,,
to supply electricity to the two units based upon the audit report objection raised by Auditor and alleged revenue loss I contrary to the said provisions,,,
and Rules thereunder. It was also contended by the appellant that denial to have a separate meter and direction to amalgamate supply of electricity,,,
and consumption of electricity to be recorded by one meter is not only violative of the provisions of the Act of 2003 but even contrary to the Gujarat,,,
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of IntraÂState Open Access) Regulations, 2011. Relying upon the definition of word",,,
consumer under section 2(15) and Open Access under section 2(47) and definition of Open Access 3(p) and Open access customer 3(q) in GERC,,,
Regulations of 2011, and also definition of 'premises' in section 2(51) of the Act of 2003, it was contended that clause 4.1.17 of the Code cast an",,,
obligation upon the consumer opting for second meter to produce certain documents to show separate legal entity which are only illustrative and if,,,
such a consumer produces any one of such documents, the consumer will be entitled to have a separate meter of electricity supply. It was contended",,,
by the appellant that otherwise, the same would amount to injunction of his right to have electricity supply through open access and contrary to the",,,
very object of the Act of 2003. It was also contended by the appellant that clause 4.1.17 of the Code does not provide for any specific bar in the case,,,
of supply of electricity to two different premises though having no separate legal entity or identity in view of the available open access under the Act,,,
of 2003 as well as the Regulations of 2011. It was also contended by the appellant that it is not the case of any misrepresentation or suppression of,,,
details about two different entities and on the aforesaid grounds, the communications impugned in the petition came to be challenged.",,,
The respondent Electricity Company relied upon the stand taken in the affidavit and also contended that the appellantÂorig. Petitioner is not a,,,
consumer having separate legal entity and therefore, the appellantÂorig. Petitioner is not entitled for a separate second meter.",,,
The learned Single Judge, considering the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Regulations of 2011, more particularly, considering the definitions of",,,
“open access†“consumer†and formula of calculation of energy bill, came to the conclusion that as per the provisions of clause 4.1.17 of the",,,
Code, a consumer using electricity facility have to satisfy the conditions enumerated therein which may not only include separate income tax no., pan",,,
card, no., sales tax no., but also about legal entity as defined under the Act of 2003 and negatived the contentions raised by the appellant and was",,,
pleased to reject the petition against which the present appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.,,,
The record indicates that an affidavitÂinÂreply is also filed by the Electricity Company in the Letters Patent Appeal. It has been contended by the,,,
respondent electricity company that originally the connection was released in the name of Amrapali Spinning Mills Ltd. at Survey No. 217 of village,,,
Sari for 200 KVA having connection No. 17312. The said connection was thereafter transferred in the name of the appellant on 15.04.1996. It has,,,
been contended that thereafter, the appellant executed agreement with the respondent on 15.01.1999 for 1000 KVA for spinning mills. It has been",,,
contended by the respondent electricity company that thereafter the appellant had applied for extension of load from 1000 KVA to 2000 KVA and on,,,
the same being sanctioned, the appellant had executed agreement with the respondent on 10.02.2005. It was contended by the respondent electricity",,,
company that the appellant demanded for extension of load from 2000 KVA to 4000 KVA for connection no. 17312 at survey no.217 of village Sari,,,
and an agreement to that effect was executed on 20.09.2010 for 4000 KVA.,,,
It has been contended by the respondent electricity company that the appellant is also having HT connection no.18563 in the name of Aarvee,,,
Denim & Export Ltd. at village Sari in the extended premises. The appellant had applied for HT connection for spinning unit of 2500 KVA on,,,
11.01.2012. It was contended by the respondent electricity company that both the units, viz., unit in Survey No.217 and 212 are adjacent to each other.",,,
It has been contended by the respondent electricity company that the appellant is having load of 4000 KVA in connection no.17312 and the appellant,,,
has demanded for second connection in the extended premises having load of 2500 KVA instead of extension of load in HT connection no.17312 as,,,
total load demanded exceed 4000 KVA which falls under EHV category and and for that the appellant has to erect KV line and 66 KV sub station,,,
at a cost of 7 to 8 crores and with a view to avoid such a huge expenditure, the appellant is avoiding to amalgamate/merge both the connections.",,,
Referring to clause 4.1.17 of the GERC notification dated 31.03.2005, it was contended that the licenssee cannot provide more than one",,,
connection/meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter have to produce separate legal entity such as separate income tax,,,
number (PAN No.)/Sales Tax number etc. The respondent electricity company has relied upon clause 3.5.1 and clause 4.1.17 of the Code and,,,
Regulations.,,,
It has been contended by the respondent electricity company that it had called upon the appellant to merge both the connection into one connection,,,
or submit documents regarding separate legal entity within thirty days. It has been contended that the appellant replied to the same vide letter dated,,,
21.09.2012 stating that the two units are separate. The respondent electricity company by its reply letter dated 08.10.2012 informed the appellant that,,,
it has not submitted any documents relating to separate entity nor has applied for merging of all separate units in one connection and on failing to do so,",,,
the connection will be disconnected. It was contended by the respondent electricity company that the appellant vide letter dated 19.10.2012 refused to,,,
amalgamate both the connections though they belong to the same owner and the activities being the same and though the premises are adjacent. It,,,
was contended by the respondent electricity company that again on 07.11.2012, the respondent asked the appellant to complete all formalities for",,,
merging both the units in one connection as both the HT Units are situated adjacent to each other and having no separate legal entity and the same,,,
would cause revenue loss to the respondent by giving separate connection to each adjacent units. It was contended by respondent electricity company,,,
that as per the definition of premises under the Electricity Act of 2003, irrespective of different survey numbers, the load is considered as one",,,
premises and the characteristic of premises is indivisible for electricity connection unless the documents for separate legal entity is provided. It was,,,
contended that purchase of adjoining land by existing consumer for extension of single business is regarded as extension of premises and Regulation,,,
4.1.17 and 3.5.1 of supply code restrict the existing consumer from artificial division of electric connection in two or more connection and such division,,,
is erroneous and illegal.,,,
The appellant has also filed rejoinder to the same and has contended that originally the appellant had connection no. 17312 and as more power was,,,
required for spinning unit, the appellant had made and application to extend the power demand from 2000 KVA to 4000 KVA. It was also contended",,,
that the statement in para 2 of the additional affidavit is contrary and does not maintain the spirit of regulation with regard to Regulation 4.1.17 of the,,,
GERC Regulations, 2005. It was contended by the appellant that both the premises are separate from each other and having clear demarcation, it was",,,
further contended that thus the premises are different though the consumer is one and therefore, the adjoining premises or adjacent premises can",,,
never be treated as same or one premises. Relying upon the provisions of Regulation 4.1.17 and Regulation 3.5.1 of the GERC Regulations 2005, it",,,
has been contended that the purposive interpretation of the same is required to be made and the provisions of Regulation 3.5.1 does not provide for,,,
reclassification under appropriate category compared to provisions of Regulation 4.1.17 and in view of the provisions of Regulation 3.5.1, the",,,
contention raised by the respondent is incorrect. It is further contended that as per the definition of the word premises provided under section 2(51) of,,,
the Act of 2003, the averments made in para 6 of the additional affidavit in reply is incorrect. It is further contended by the appellant that the order",,,
impugned in this appeal is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations of 2005. It is therefore contended",,,
by the appellant that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the notices impugned in the petition deserves to be quashed. It is also averred,,,
by the appellant that the respondent electricity company has started sending merged electricity bills from the month of November 2013 with regard to,,,
HT connections No. 17312 and 18564, which is completely arbitrary and the appellant company is incurring heavy loss because of such bills. It is also",,,
contended the the appellant reserves its right to recover the excess money with interest which is collected by the respondent Electricity Company by,,,
issuing merged bills arbitrarily. On the aforesaid grounds, it is reiterated by the appellant that the appeal be allowed.",,,
The respondent electricity company has filed its affidavitÂinÂreply dated 04.01.2014 in the LPA and has relied upon the order dated 12.08.2013,,,
passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 464 of 2013 and has also relied upon the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this,,,
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1068 and 1069 of 2013. The respondent electricity company by relying upon clause 4.1.17 of the Supply Code,,,
contended that the objectives of this delegated legislation is to save distribution licensee from the revenue loss due to existence of more than one,,,
connection/meter in same legal entity. It was contended by respondent electricity company that the issue of revenue loss was also reminder to,,,
licensee by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India in their audit report of the year ending 2009 in case of Nirma University and Banas Dairy. It,,,
was contended by the respondent Electricity Company that the CAG audit report is also considered in PUC meeting dated 14.08.2012 and ratified the,,,
implementation of audit point of CAG into its right prospective. It was therefore contended that the distribution licensee cannot provide more than one,,,
connection for one premises and under such circumstances, the appellant was asked to produce document regarding separate legal entity and the",,,
appellant company was further requested to execute fresh agreement with merging of both the connections. It was contended by the respondent,,,
electricity company that as the appellant did not submit any document for separate legal entity for their units nor did it apply for merging of separate,,,
unit for one connection, by communication dated 08.10.2012, the appellant company was requested to complete all the formalities for merging of HT",,,
connections in one connection within 21 days from the date of issuance of notice failing which the connection will be disconnected. It was contended,,,
by the respondent electricity company that the respondent company was suffering huge loss which ultimately affects State Exchequer and nonÂ‐,,,
merging separate connections in the same premises would lead to loss of revenue which would ultimately affect other categories of consumers. It was,,,
contended by the respondent electricity company by non merging of separate connections in the same premise, the respondent electricity company",,,
had loss of revenue of Rs.9.97 lacs from July 2012 to December 2012. A detailed reply to that effect was filed in Special Civil Application No. 464 of,,,
2012 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Court. It was therefore contended by the respondent electricity company that the learned Single,,,
Judge has considered all the aforesaid aspects while dismissing the petition and the present appeal be dismissed accordingly.,,,
Heard Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar, learned Senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Jha, learned advocate for the appellantÂoriginal petitioner and",,,
Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned senior advocate assisted by Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondents.",,,
Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the particulars of the first unit set up by the appellant, the new plot purchased in 2005",,,
and the application made by the appellant in the year 2012 and contended that the appellant has not divided one premises into two but in fact one more,,,
was added as new premises as second premises adjacent to the first one. It was contended that the new premises is an independent unit and there is,,,
no connection with the old unit and according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the respondent electricity company never raised the",,,
aspect of one premises. Mr. Soparkar contended that even in the affidavitÂinÂreply filed before the learned Single Judge, the case of the respondent",,,
electricity company was that of adjoining premises and not one premise, which is modified in the appeal and the contention raised by the respondent",,,
electricity company that the entire premises is one premise is in fact contrary to the pleadings where the case put up is for adjoining premises.,,,
Mr. Soparkar contended that even the case put up by the respondent that there is revenue loss is contrary to the record. Mr. Soparkar contended,,,
that the tariff nowhere prescribes that if one person owns two adjacent premises, independent of each other, they must be clubbed. It was also",,,
contended that GERC which decides the tariff itself has held that the petitioner need not combine the plots.,,,
It was contended that once the GERC, which regulates the tariff holds that it is not necessary for the appellant to combine the plots, the reliance",,,
placed for by the electricity company upon the objection raised by the Accountant General Gujarat is misconceived. It was also contended that only,,,
because of the geographical location of the two plots in question which are adjoining to each other and there is no road going in between the two,,,
premises, it cannot be said that they are the same premises or one premise. Mr. Soparkar relying upon the provisions of regulation 4.1.17 of the Supply",,,
Code contended that stand taken by the electricity company is without any basis and the learned single judge has wrongly interpreted the provisions of,,,
Regulation 4.1.17 and hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal as prayed for. Mr. Soparkar further",,,
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Associated Cement Companies, Ltd., Chaibasa Cement Works, Jhinkpani v. Their",,,
Workmen reported in AIR 1960 SC 56 and submitted that even two nearby premise can still be independent establishment. Referring to the case of,,,
the appellant, it was contended by Mr. Soparkar that both units are separate and the requirements that are provided for in regulation 4.1.17 are only",,,
illustrative in nature. Mr. Soparkar further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Major Bahadur,,,
Singh reported in 2006(1) SCC 368 and contended that the respondent electricity company has wrongly interpreted the judgment of the Division Bench,,,
of this Court as well as the judgment of the Apex Court. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Soparkar that as per regulation 4.1.17 of",,,
the Supply Code, the appellant is entitled to a separate electricity connection, which was rightly given by the respondent electricity company and only",,,
on the wrong premises of the objection raised by the Accountant General, Gujarat State, the electricity company has changed its stand that too at the",,,
appellate stage. It was therefore reiterated by Mr. Soparkar that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and,,,
the appeal be allowed as prayed for.,,,
Per contra, Mr. Shelat, learned senior advocate appearing for the electricity company has taken the Court through the factual matrix. Mr. Shelat",,,
contended that first connection was given to the appellant in the year 1996 when they purchased the land bearing block no. 217 at village Sari. Mr.,,,
Shelat contended that the new connection was given in the year 2012 for the premises situated in land bearing block No. 212/2Â3Â4 of village Sari,",,,
which was purchased by the appellant in the year 2005.,,,
Referring to regulation 4.1.17, it was contended by Mr. Shelat that it is not in dispute that the appellant has not been able to satisfy the authority of",,,
being a separate legal entity having regard to the evidence required.,,,
Mr. Shelat further contended that the appellant is not right in contending that the premises for which the second connection is given is a separate,,,
premises. It was contended that in reality it is expansion of the existing premises. Both the premises are merged into one. Referring to Regulation,,,
4.1.17, it was contended that the appellant is required to produce document in support of its case that it is a separate legal entity. Mr. Shelat further",,,
contended that purchase of adjoining land by the appellant as existing consumer was for extension of the same business and even according to the,,,
regulation, the same would amount to extension of existing premises and in such a case, the consumer is required to apply for expansion of existing",,,
road. Mr. Shelat contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the provisions of the Electricity Act and has rightly come to the,,,
conclusion that it is the same premises and the appellant could not have been given separate connection. Mr. Shelat further contended that the,,,
provisions of regulation 4.1.17 is to be interpreted as rightly interpreted by the learned Single Judge with the purpose so as to avoid revenue loss,,,
consistent with the tariff encouraging single connection facilitating smooth transmission by clubbing of the load and distribution of electricity and,,,
contract demand. It was further contended by Mr. Shelat that object of Regulation 4.1.17 is to avoid revenue loss and to encourage single connection,,,
and clubbing of their loads and to facilitate smooth transmission and on the contrary, in the facts of the present case, the appellant is required to get",,,
clubbed the connection where more than one connection exists in the premises. It was contended that only because the expansion has been made in a,,,
separate survey numbers, in absence of any separate legal entity for which no evidence is produced by the appellant, it cannot be said that the second",,,
unit is a separate entity. It was also contended by Mr. Shelat that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the aspect of loss of energy based,,,
upon the audit note which has resulted into revenue loss to the respondent electricity company. Mr. Shelat also contended that the judgment rendered,,,
by the GERC relates to grant of open access to the appellant and the said interpretation of the regulation is limited to the purpose of open access. Mr.,,,
Shelat further relied upon the following judgments Â,,,
1) Judgement dated 17.09.2013 in LPA No. 1069 of 2013,,,
2) Order dated 12.08.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 15262 of 2012 (Modern Denim Vs. UGVCL),,,
3) Judgement dated 08.04.2015 in SCA No. 15105 of 2012,,,
4) N. Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose & Ors. (2009(7) SCC 1),,,
It was contended by Mr. Shelat that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the,,,
appellant is not applicable to the present appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent electricity company that the said judgment relates to,,,
interpretation of “one establishment†whereas in the case on hand, what is to be interpreted as per regulation 4.1.17 is the word “premisesâ€.",,,
It was further submitted by Mr. Shelat that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Modern Denim is binding precedent on facts. It was,,,
contended that regulation 4.1.17 is required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object of the same and the learned Single Judge has rightly,,,
interpreted the said provision by purposive construction of the provisions of the Electricity Act. Referring to the definition of the word “one†as,,,
given in Law Laxicon, it was contended by Mr. Shelat that the same would mean entire premises. It was therefore contended by Mr. Shelat that the",,,
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge,,,
is just and proper and consistent with the provisions of the Act and the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.",,,
Mr. Soparkar in his further reply distinguishing the judgment of this Court in the case of Modern Denim contended that the same is completely,,,
misplaced as the controversy which arose in the case of Modern Denim does not arise in the present appeal. It was also contended by Mr. Soparkar,,,
that even the judgment in the case of Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the respondent electricity company is misconceived as in the said,,,
case, the learned Single Judge of this Court was concerned with retrospective application of the clauses of GERC regulations and it was an accepted",,,
position that all the connections were in the same premise. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Kannadasan vs. Ajay Khose,,,
reported in 2009(7) SCC 1 and Souther Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in 2012(2) SCC 10, 8it was",,,
submitted by Mr. Soparkar that the legislation has to be interpreted purposively and even though the appellant does not dispute such a proposition, the",,,
same would not carry the case of the respondent electricity company any further. It was reiterated by Mr. Soparkar that the appeal deserves to be,,,
allowed as prayed for and the correct interpretation of regulation 4.1.17 of the Supply Code in facts of the case clearly establishes the case in favour,,,
of the appellant and the second premises set up in Block no.212/2Â3Â4 at village Sari is a separate entity for which the connection was applied for in,,,
the year 2012.,,,
No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.,,,
Before reverting to the submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act as well as",,,
GERC regulations.,,,
“PART I,,,
PRELIMINARY,,,
Definitions. Â,,,
(13) “company†means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes any body corporate under a",,,
Central, State or Provincial Act;",,,
(15) “consumer†means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person,,,
engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose,,,
premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the government or such other person,",,,
as the case may be;,,,
(47) “open access†means the nondiscriminatory provision for the use of transmission lines or distribution system or associated facilities with such,,,
lines or system by any licensee or consumer or a person engaged in generation in accordance with the regulations specified by the Appropriate,,,
Commission;,,,
(49) “person†shall include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical",,,
person;,,,
(51) “premises†includes any land, building or structure;",,,
PART VII,,,
TARIFF,,,
Tariff regulations. The Appropriate Commission shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, specify the terms and conditions for the determination",,,
of tariff, and in doing so, shall be guided by the following, namely :Â",,,
(a) the principles and methodologies specified by the Central Commission for determination of the tariff applicable to generating companies and,,,
transmission licensees;,,,
(b) the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are conducted on commercial principles;",,,
(c) the factors which would encourage competition, efficiency, economical use of the resources, good performance and optimum investments;",,,
(d) safeguarding of consumers' interest and at the same time, recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;",,,
(e) the principles rewarding efficiency in performance;,,,
(f) multiÂyear tariff principles;,,,
1[(g) that the tariff progressively reflects the cost of supply of electricity and also reduces crossÂsubsidies in the manner specified by the Appropriate,,,
Commission;],,,
(h) the promotion of coÂgeneration and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy;,,,
(i) the National Electricity Policy and tariff policy:,,,
Provided that the terms and conditions for determination of tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948), the Electricity Regulatory",,,
Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) and the enactments specified in the Schedule as they stood immediately before the appointed date, shall continue",,,
to apply for a period of one year or until the terms and conditions for tariff are specified under this section, whichever is earlier.â€",,,
REGULATIONS, 2011",,,
“CHAPTER 1,,,
PRELIMINARY,,,
Definitions,,,
“Open Access†means the nonÂdiscriminatory provision for the use of transmission lines or distribution system or associated facilities with such,,,
lines or system by any licensee or consumer or a person engaged in generation in accordance with these regulations and includes longÂterm access,",,,
mediumÂterm open access and shortÂterm open access.,,,
“Open access customer†means a consumer, trader, distribution licensee or a generating company who has been granted open access under these",,,
regulations.â€,,,
CHAPTER 4,,,
APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND APPROVAL,,,
Application procedure for Open Access,,,
“(1) All applications for open access shall be made in the prescribed Form and submitted to the Nodal agency in accordance with these regulations.,,,
(2) All applicants seeking open access shall submit an undertaking of not having entered into Power purchase agreement (PPA) or any other bilateral,,,
agreement with more than one person for the capacity (quantum of power) for which open access is sought.,,,
(3) Subject to the provisions of these regulations, the Nodal agency, Application fee, Documents to accompany the application and time frame for",,,
disposal of application shall be specified in the following Tables:â€,,,
GERC Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations,,,
“3.5 RECLASSIFICATION OF CONSUMER,,,
3.5.1 If it is found that a Consumer has been classified in a particular category erroneously or the purpose of supply as mentioned in the distribution,,,
service Agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded the limit of that category or any order of reduction or enhancement of,,,
Contract Demand has been obtained, the Distribution Licensee may reclassify him under appropriate category after issuing notice (with minimum",,,
notice period of 30 days) to him to execute a fresh Agreement on the basis of the altered classification or modified Contract Demand. If the,,,
Consumer does not take steps within the time indicated in the notice to execute a fresh Agreement, the Distribution Licensee may, subject to the",,,
provisions of the Acts, Rules and Regulations for the time being in force, after issuing a clear 21 days show cause notice and alter considering his",,,
explanation, if any, disconnect the supply of power. Further, the Distribution licensee shall dispose of all such applications fer change of tariff class by",,,
a Consumer within maximum period of seven days after receipt of such application regarding the change of tariff class or communicate the reasons,,,
for not changing the term class. as applicable. In case of any dispute, the matter shall Âbe referred to Forum for redressal of consumer grievances.â€",,,
“4.1.17 The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than on connection/meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will,,,
have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/Sales Tax No. ration card and rent or lease agreement.â€,,,
The facts further indicate that after the purchase of plot No. 212/2Â3Â4 at village Sari in the year 2005, the appellant applied for electricity",,,
connection by an application dated 11.01.2012. The particulars of such application which is forming part of the record of the appeal shows following,,,
details Â,,,
Name of the applicant ARVEE Denim and Export Ltd.,,,
Connection New,,,
The same is signed by the authorised signatory â€" Factory Manager in the name of Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd.,,,
Clause 4.1.17 clearly inter alia provides that consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of,,,
separate income tax number/sales tax number, rent or lease agreement and admittedly, the appellant is one entity and has not been able to produce on",,,
record of the electricity company a separate income tax number/sales tax number.,,,
Even the site plan which was submitted by the respondent electricity company clearly shows that both the units are adjoining to each other and the,,,
name of the company is also the same and therefore, the appellant is the same person and the same consumer as defined under section 2(15) and",,,
2(49) of the Electricity Act and as rightly contended by the respondent electricity company, the objectives of regulation 4.1.17 is to be interpreted by",,,
making purposive construction and very object of such regulation is to avoid revenue loss. It is also required to be seen that by clubbing loads, the",,,
transmission would be smooth and only because survey numbers are separate, in absence of any separate identity as envisaged under Regulation",,,
4.1.17 being absent in the present case, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a single unit. Even in the letter written by",,,
the appellant dated 08.10.2012, the appellant has not submitted any documents for separate legal entity of adjoining unit. The contention that GERC",,,
has decided in a different manner would not take the case of the appellant any further as the same is for different purpose for fixation of the tariff.,,,
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the present petition has not only rightly interpreted the provisions of the Act and the regulations, but has",,,
succinctly considered the provisions of the Act of 2003, Rules and Regulations, more particularly comparing the load required by the appellant and the",,,
electricity charge calculation.,,,
It would be appropriate to reproduce paras 12, 13, and 14 of the impugned judgement and order, which reads as under Â",,,
“12. If the above definition of 'consumer' is considered, alongwith Section 2(49) about definition of a person which includes any Company or Body",,,
Incorporate or Association or Body of individuals whether incorporated or not or artificial Juridical person and the definition of Section 2.(51) about,,,
Consumer no,Actual Demand,Rate per KVA,Total Charges in Rs.
17243,1501 KVA,Rs.100 x 500 KVA,"Rs. 50,000
,,Rs.200 x 500 KVA,"Rs.1,00,000
,,Rs.270 x 400 KVA,"Rs.1,08,000
,,Rs.370 x 101 KVA,"Rs. 37,370
Total,,1501 KVA,"Rs.2,95,370
Consumer no,KWH Drawl,Rate per KWH,Total Charges in Rs.
17243 & 17363,1822239 KWH,Rs.4.30 per unit,"Rs.78,35,628