9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMIX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge the legality of the impugned order of the Commission. Nothing in the 2003 Act suggests that a consumer who does not participate in the Commission's public hearing and is aggrieved by an order of the Commission is disentitled to prefer an appeal. It is an admitted position that 1st respondent, a continuous process industry on express feeder, paid a higher tariff during the relevant period of July 2009 to April 2010 to enable it to get supply without load-shedding. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal that the appellant was not entitled to impose a reliability charge on customers like the 1st respondent. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed. - Abhay S. Oka And Ujjal Bhuyan , JJ. For the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontinued the additional supply charges with immediate effect. It directed the appellant to refund the additional supply charges collected from bulk industries during the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. According to the case of the 1st respondent, as it is a continuous process industry and a bulk consumer, the appellant did not subject them to load-shedding. Therefore, the tariff was specifically fixed slightly higher than that for HT non - continuous process industries. 3. The appellant submitted a petition before the Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the 2003 Act ) for approval of reliability charges to be recovered for implementing Zero Load Shedding (ZLS) in the area covered by Pen Circle in Maharashtra. Permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld, therefore, urge that the 1st respondent had no locus to challenge the order of the Commission dated 15th June 2009, and its remedy was to apply for review. He pointed out that the reliability charge was imposed for a limited period between 16th June 2009 and 31st March 2010, and at the time of the extension of the scheme, the 1st respondent could have raised an objection. He submitted that the 1st respondent is a bulk electricity consumer, consuming about 45 per cent of the electricity consumed in Pen Circle. Still, the 1st respondent did not participate in the public hearing conducted by the Commission. He submitted that the 1st respondent was enjoying ZLS and, therefore, was liable to pay the reliability charge, which HT industrial c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply to the industries like the 1st respondent. The Tribunal also held that neither Section 62(3) of the 2013 Act nor the Rules and Regulations framed by the Commission support the levy of reliability charge. The appellant in this appeal is unable to show any basis in the Statute or Statutory rules and regulations to support the levy of a reliability charge. 7. As regards the failure of the 1st respondent to object at the time of the public hearing, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that Vidharba Industries Association, of which the 1st respondent is a member, had raised an objection by filing an affidavit. There is no dispute about this factual aspect. 8. Under Section 111 of the 2003 Act, a statutory appeal is provided against an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
