- (1.) The Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana (MVGS), through its President Shri Pratap Ganpatrao Hogade, has filed a Petition under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 seeking penal action against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) and its officers responsible for violating the provisions of the EA, 2003 and Regulations and non -compliance of the Commission's Orders while providing new electricity connections to Agricultural Consumers, and non -compliance of certain other directions.
(2.) The prayers of MVGS are as follows:
(3.) The Petition states that: 3.1 In its Circular No.3030 dated 29 January, 2014, MSEDCL has stipulated that all infrastructure works related to Low Tension (LT) Agriculture pump energization will be carried out only under ongoing schemes, viz. SPA:PE, Infrastructure Plan II, DPDC, backlog of Agricultural connections and other Government -funded schemes. MSEDCL's clarificatory Circular No.4900 dated 12 February, 2014 reiterates that no Agricultural connection will be released under Non -Dedicated Distribution Facility (DDF) (Consumer Contribution and Refund, i.e. CC and RF) Scheme. However, any out - of -turn connection sought may be approved under the non -Refundable DDF scheme. 3.2 Thus prospective Agricultural consumer will have to wait for 4 -5 years for connections. Further, such consumers may be compelled to incur all the expenditure involved under the DDF scheme. 3.3 Section 43 of the EA, 2003 provides that the Distribution Licensee shall observe Universal Service Obligation (USO). New connections have to be given within one month of application or within such other period as is decided by the Commission. 3.4 The MERC (Electricity Supply Code and other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 ('Supply Code') were notified on 20 January, 2005. In its Order dated 8 September, 2006 in Case No. 70 of 2005 approving the Schedule of Charges, the Commission rejected MSEDCL's proposal to recover service line charges from prospective consumers except in case of those seeking DDF, and directed that the cost of infrastructure from the delivery point of the transmission system to the distributing mains should be borne by MSEDCL. The expenditure on the capital investment on infrastructure would be considered during Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) determination. 3.5 MSEDCL had issued the Circular No.43 dated 29 September, 2009 regarding the approved Schedule of Charges. The Commission has approved the revised Schedule of Charges to be recovered by MSEDCL vide its Order dated 16 August, 2012 in Case No. 19 of 2012. Under the Schedule, the Distribution Licensee is expected to recover application processing fees, service connection charges and security deposit while releasing new connections. Inspite of the Commission's Order in Case No.70 of 2005 dated 8 September, 2006 3.6 and Circular No.43 dated 29 September, 2009, MSEDCL field offices continued to collect meter cost and related infrastructure cost. Hence MVGS filed a Petition in Case No.82 of 2006. The Commission, vide its Order dated 17 May, 2007, directed MSEDCL not to collect any charges which are not defined under the Supply Code and/or the Order of the Commission in Case No.70 of 2005 dated 8 September, 2006. 3.7 Vide Order in Case No.56 of 2007 dated 16 February, 2008, the Commission has elaborated upon the concept of DDF. It has clarified that consumers should not be burdened with infrastructure cost which is the responsibility of MSEDCL. These charges may be recovered by MSEDCL through the ARR. Accordingly, MSEDCL issued Circular No.22197 (Guidelines for releasing new connections and augmentation) and Circular No.25680 (Procedure to plan for electrifying areas, preparation of schemes (DPRs) and releasing new connections). Thereafter, MSEDCL had withdrawn its Review Petition in Case No.56 of 2007. 3.8 MSEDCL's Circulars No.22197 and No.25680 were in force till 28 January, 2014. According to these Circulars, if a consumer or group of consumer wants early connection and opts to execute the work and bears the cost of infrastructure initially, that cost will be refunded through adjustments in energy bills. Thus, consumers benefited by getting connections earlier, with refund of infrastructure cost through bill adjustments. 3.9 MSEDCL's Circular No.3030 dated 29 January, 2014 and clarificatory Circular No.4900 dated 12 February, 2014 discriminate between Agricultural pump consumers, and the facility of executing the work by bearing the cost of infrastructure initially and getting refund of the cost has been halted. 3.10 Inspite of the Commission's directions and approved schedule of charges, additional charges were collected by MSEDCL while releasing new connections. Vide Order dated 1 September, 2010 in Case No. 93 of 2008, the Commission had directed MSEDCL to scrutinize all such cases from 9 September, 2006 to 20 May, 2008 and seek information through appeals in newspapers or electricity bills, and refund the charges by way of bill adjustment. However, no action has been taken by MSEDCL. 3.11 Further, vide its Order dated 5 January, 2010 in Case No.148 of 2011, the Commission had directed MSEDCL to set up a Committee to correct old practices, inadvertent mistakes that had occurred and confusion with regard to interpretation of DDF and Service Connection charges, and directed it to review all its circulars, orders and any other documents relating to the supply of electricity to consumers, and to ensure that all are consistent with the provisions of the EA, 2003 and Regulations. However no such Committee has been formed by MSEDCL. 3.12 Vide Circular No.3030 dated 29 January, 2014, MSEDCL has declared that all infrastructure works related to Low Tension (LT) Agricultural pump energization will be carried out only under ongoing schemes, viz SPA:PE, Infrastructure Plan II, DPDC, AG backlog and other Government funded schemes. MSEDCL's clarificatory Circular No.4900 dated 12 February, 2014 reiterates that no Agricultural connection shall be released under Non -DDF (CC and RF) Scheme. Applications for connection may be approved under the Non Refundable DDF scheme. Thus, Agricultural consumers will be compelled to carry out all the expenditure themselves as envisaged under the DDF scheme. While the Non -DDF (CC and RF) Scheme has been discontinued for AG pump connections, it is still in force for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. For such non -compliance of the Commission's directions, action needs to taken against MSEDCL under Sections 142 and 146 of the EA, 2003. ;