- (1.) M/s Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (NPPM), Aurangabad has filed a Petition dated 15 July, 2014 for action against MSEDCL u/s 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for non - compliance of Order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Aurangabad. The Petitioner's prayers are as follows: -
(2.) " 1) Respondent may be directed to refund / adjust unpaid Additional Supply Charges of Rs.1,04,69,029 along with interest accruing thereon without further delay. Respondent may be penalized for non compliance of Hon'ble CGRF, Aurangabad 2) order as per provision u/s 142 of Electricity Act, 2003. 3) Respondent may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000 (Rs. Fifty Lacs Only) to the petitioner due to a colossal financial loss caused to the petitioner due to illegal and deliberate disconnection of power supply by the Respondent for period 31/5/14 to 4/6/14 and Rs.1,00,000/ towards cost of this petition. 4) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found to be entitled to considering the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted."
(3.) The facts stated in the Petition are as follows: - 3.1 The Petitioner (or NPPM) is engaged in production and marketing of industrial grades of paper with annual installed capacity of 38000 MT per annum. The Petitioner is sourcing its requirement of electricity from MSEDCL from its 132 kV sub -station at Paithan since inception i.e. from Year 1979. 3.2 Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has approved rehabilitation scheme for Petitioner Company on 14 February, 2012 vide Order in Case No.304/2000. In the said Order, BIFR reliefs and concessions were mentioned. On part of State Government, MSEDCL was to consider the following: - "(i) To consider exemption of the company from electricity duty for the period of rehabilitation and to waive the Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) and interest levied on late payment of electricity bills from July 1996,being the year in which NPPL incurred cash loss and tax on sale of electricity, till the date of sanction of the scheme and to refund the amount of DPC interest paid, tax on sale of electricity, since paid. (ii) To consider refund/adjust against the current bills the RLC (Regulatory Liability Chagres) collected during the period Dec.2003 to Sep.2006 amounting to Rs.1,79,13,825 and ASC (Additional Supply Charges) collected during the period Oct.06 to May.08 amounting to Rs.1,52,41,022/ - to the company against the current bill in entirety or refund the same in one stroke. (iii) To consider supply of uninterrupted power without any power cuts during the rehabilitation period." In pursuance to the Commission's tariff Order in Case No.54 of 2005 dated 20 3.3 October , 2006, MSEDCL was permitted to charge Additional Supply Charges (ASC) on account of costly power purchased by MSEDCL from external sources to maintain the supply chain. While hearing the matter in Case No.139 of 2008, the Commission has directed MSEDCL to refund the excess amount collected under ASC charges to respective and eligible consumers. 3.4 MSEDCL collected Additional Supply Charges (ASC) from Petitioner to tune of Rs 1,47,34,569/ - out of which MSEDCL refunded Rs 45,55,158 during October, 2009 to July, 2010 by way of credit adjustments. Balance of Rs. 1,04,69,029 is still unpaid. 3.5 The Petitioner filed an application to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Circle, MSEDCL Aurangabad on 12 April, 2013 for refund of balance amount of Rs 1,04,69,029. Superintending Engineer forwarded the proposal to Chief Engineer (Commercial), Mumbai. Chief Engineer (Commercial) referred back the matter to Superintending Engineer for furnishing details and recommendations. Superintending Engineer has not acted on matter even after continuous follow up. 3.6 Being aggrieved by inaction on part of MSEDCL, NPPM filed its grievance dated 14 October, 2013 before IGRC, Auragabad. IGRC, Auragabad neither issued any notice nor held any hearing for more than 60 days. After inaction of IGRC, Petitioner filed his grievance before CGRF on 16 January, 2014. 3.7 CGRF issued notice to MSEDCL on 18 January, 2014 and scheduled the hearing on 5 February, 2014. The hearing was adjourned to 11 February, 2014 and further to 17 February, 2014. On 17 February, 2014 Executive Engineer, Nodal Officer, MSEDCL submitted that the balance Additional Supply Charges (ASC) will be refunded after approval from the Chief Engineer (Commercial). 3.8 CGRF, vide its Order dated 15 March, 2014, directed the following: - "1) Respondent to refund unpaid A.S.C charges with interest @ rate of 9 % p.a. w.e.f. date of application, within one month from the date of this order. 2) No order as to cost." 3.9 Instead of complying with CGRF Order and refunding the balance of Rs 1,04,69,029, MSEDCL issued disconnection notice to Petitioner under Section 56 of the Electricity Act ,2003, inter alia directing the Petitioner to pay bill of energy charges for March,2014 amounting to Rs 50,92,155/ -. On receipt of the notice, Petitioner sought refund/credit adjustment of Rs 50,92,155/ - vide letter dated 22 April, 2014. 3.10 In response to Petitioner's application dated 22 April ,2014, the Superintending Engineer has disowned the entire liability arising out of refund of balance Additional Supply Charges. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the Petitioner vide letter dated 30 April, 2014 drew attention to the fact that at no point of time during the proceedings before CGRF, had the Nodal Officer disowned the entire liability arising out of refund of balance Additional Supply Charges. 3.11 On 22 May, 2014 MSEDCL served 2nd disconnection notice to the Petitioner under section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for non payment of bill of Rs. 1,04,72,370/ - for the month of March and April 2014. Petitioner reiterated its stand in its reply vide letter dated 23 May 2014. 3.12 In utter disregard of the CGRF Order and request of Petitioner, MSEDCL disconnected supply to the Petitioner's premises on 31 May, 2014. Against this action of MSEDCL, Petitioner approached CGRF seeking injunction against disconnection of supply. CGRF, vide interim Order dated 2 June 2014, directed MSEDCL to restore the power supply to the Petitioner's plant. 3.13 MSEDCL disregarded the interim Order of CGRF by not restoring the power supply, thus compelling the Petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court, Bench at Auragabad to seek justice. Only after interim Order by the High Court, was the electricity supply restored on 4 June, 2014. The electricity supply was under disconnection from 31 May, 2014 to 4 June, 2014. ;