M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) ALL these three Appeals are being disposed of through this common judgement as the issue raised in the three tariff orders dated 26.8.2011 is the same which has been challenged in these Appeals. The short facts are as follows: (a) Delhi Jal Board is the Appellant herein. (b) The Appellant under the Delhi Water Board act, 1988 is charged with responsibilities of providing basic services of water supply, sewage collection sewage disposal besides drainage to the residents of NCT of Delhi. (c) To achieve this object, it uses number of Treatment Plants, pumping stations and tube wells etc. (d) The Appellant is thus catering to the needs of the society as a public utility service. It does not have any profit or commercial motive. The Appellant is supplying water to most of the categories of consumers below the cost of supply. (e) For availing power, the Appellant's facilities are connected to Transmission system and Distribution systems at various points of supply. The Appellant consumes powers at different voltage segments i.e. Low Tension supply and Mixed Load High Tension Supply on 11 KV and 440 Volts (LT). (f) The supply made available to the Appellant from the sub -station which has been constructed on the land by the Appellant at his own cost. The cost for infrastructure was paid by the Appellant to the three distribution Companies. According to the Appellant, since the associated expenditure involved for the Distribution Companies is relatively quite less, the Appellant could not be asked to pay high fixed/demand charges. Moreover, the technical losses at such high voltage are much lower. Therefore, the tariff for the Appellant ought to have been determined by the actual cost of supply without taking into account the cross subsidy of any other class or category of consumers. In its earlier tariff orders even the State Commission has recognised that the Appellant deserves a separate category. The tariff fixed for the Appellant is higher than the industrial category. (g) In response to the comments invited by the State Commission for the tariff finalisation for the year 2011 -12 on the applications filed by the Distribution Companies, the Appellant filed a petition requesting for rationalisation of tariff. The request made by the Appellant were that its tariff should be equal or less than that fixed for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and should not be more than the cost of supply. (h) However, the impugned order dated 26.8.2011 although recognised the fact that the Appellant is a public utility, the State Commission determined the Appellant's tariff at more than the industrial tariff. (i) Aggrieved over the impugned order dated 26.8.2011, these 3 Appeals have been filed in respect of the 3 distribution Companies.
(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised the following contentions: (a) The Appellant being a public utility engaged in providing public utility service like water supply, sewerage, pumping and treatment facilities to the State of Delhi is eligible to be treated with the privileged functions in terms of the tariff determination. The tariff applicable to it shall be fixed on the basis of the actual cost of supply without any cross subsidy for any other customer category. Cross subsidy is sought from commercial entities. The Appellant, Delhi Jal Board cannot be treated as such commercial entity. (b) The Appellant is entitled to tariff concession on the ground that the commercial/distribution losses which arise out of the connection granted to it are minimal or negligible. (c) The Appellant has subsidised the cost which is otherwise to be incurred by the electricity distribution licensee by way of providing necessary infrastructure and land to the distribution licensee. (d) The Appellant ought to be treated at par with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation with regard to concessional tariff. The treatment provided to the Appellant compared to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is discriminatory. (e) The tariff applicable to the Appellant should not be higher than the industrial tariff.
(3.) IN reply to the above submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents including the State Commission submitted that the Appellant and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation are distinct type of consumers of electricity in terms of Section 62 (3) of the Act, 2003 and merely because the Appellant is engaged in public utility and providing essential services of water supply etc., cannot per se be the criteria for the favourable tariff determination and merely because the Appellant has provided the requisite infrastructure and land for installation of sub stations cannot preclude the Distribution licensee to charge such consumers for all the components since the same has come through the statutory mandate being brought into force by the State Commission by way of tariff orders and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. In the light of the above submissions, the questions that arise for consideration in these Appeals are as follows: (a) "Whether the State Commission has adopted the discrimination towards the Appellant since the principles on which the tariff was fixed by it for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation were equally applicable to the Appellant? (b) Whether the State Commission is obliged to fix the tariff of the Appellant on the principle of the actual cost of supply? (c) Whether the State Commission is justified in fixing the tariff of the Appellant higher than the industry? ;