- (1.) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as MSEDCL) submitted a Petition on 30 August, 2013 for Review of MERC Order dated 16 July, 2013 in Case No. 88 of 2012 passed in the Petition filed by M/s. Kalika Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & 16 others seeking clarification in respect of levy of additional electricity charges for HT -1 Express feeder (Continuous supply) category consumers in billing cycles wherein there had been load shedding in electricity supplied by MSEDCL.
(2.) The Petitioner in its review Petition has made following Prayers: " This Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to : i) Admit the present petition and review its Order dated 16th July,2013; ii) Pass a speaking Order duly considering and taking into account the submissions of the Review Petitioner; iii) In the interim, stay the operation of the Impugned Order under review; iv) Ad -interim relief in terms of prayer clause iii above. v) Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice."
(3.) The main contentions submitted by the Petitioner are as under: 3.1. The present Petition has been filed against the Order dated 16 July, 2013 passed by the Commission in Case No. 88 of 2012 under Section 94 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Regulation 85 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 and Regulation 74 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004. 3.2. MSEDCL submitted that M/s. Kalika and 16 others are engaged in manufacturing of steel and Alloy products. The machinery used in this process requires continuous supply of electricity. Interruption in power supply causes huge losses. 3.3. MSEDCL submitted that the Commission has distinguished the Tariff category of the Industrial consumers requiring continuous and uninterrupted power supply into Continuous Supply category. Similarly, the Tariff of those consumers, who do not require continuous supply, has been determined under non -continuous category. Therefore, the Respondents opted for HT -1 Continuous Supply category from the Petitioner. 3.4. MSEDCL submitted that the Industrial Units availed the benefits of continuous power supply and paid additional charges at 35 paise per unit in addition to base Tariff rate of Rs. 3.95 per unit for the period from 1 May, 2008 to 31 July, 2009. Thereafter, for the period from 1 August, 2009 to 31 August, 2010, the Consumers paid 45 paise per unit more as compared to non -continuous Tariff of Rs. 4.60 per unit and thereafter, they paid as per continuous Tariff category till 30 September, 2011 as per revision in Tariff Order from time to time. 3.5. MSEDCL submitted that it was levying additional charges to the Respondents which were applicable for the continuous supply category i.e. the Express feeder. 3.6. MSEDCL submitted that the Respondents requested for the revision of bills but it was not granted since the consumers had availed continuous supply except under unavoidable conditions i.e. only for 180 hrs. out of 35000 hrs. of continuous supply and also the consumers had agreed at the time of change of Tariff from non -continuous to continuous that in case of load shedding due to unavoidable circumstances, energy charges of HT -1 (continuous supply) will be applicable to them. 3.7. MSEDCL further submitted that these interruptions took place during the Tariff period of 2008, 2009 and 2010. Therefore, the Respondents were well aware of the said interruptions during each Tariff period when the applicable Tariff was subsisting. However, the Respondent ignored the same and sought no dispensation. In fact, no communication has been placed on record. 3.8. MSEDCL submitted that the Respondent sought a change in category from non - continuous to continuous Tariff at a time when the Tariff of continuous category was lower than that of non -continuous category. For four consecutive Tariff years, the Respondent had availed benefit from continuous supply which helped them to enhance production and gain a competitive edge in market. 3.9. MSEDCL submitted that interruptions and outages occurred due to the reasons which were beyond of the control of MSEDCL. During the entire period of four years, the Respondents did not report of any difficulty in supply. Subsequently, applications had been filed by the Respondents for reconversion from continuous supply to non - continuous supply category which was due to recession in global steel market and not because of interruption/ outages. Clearly, none of the Respondents stated that reconversion is sought due to the failure on the part of MSEDCL. The Respondents after reconversion suddenly alleged that the continuous supply was not provided during the period they were categorised under respective category and therefore for the entire period, the additional Tariff paid ought to be refunded. 3.10. MSEDCL further submitted that on an average 180 hrs. of outages out of appx. 35000 hrs. of supply, per contra, the industries on non -continuous supply were subjected to 2500 hrs. of planned load shedding alone. The Respondents now prays to restore status quo ante that the entire amount of additional Tariff collected towards the Continuous supply Express feeder to be refunded to it solely due to outages which were beyond the control of MSEDCL. 3.11. MSEDCL submitted that in cases where prior information became available to MSEDCL vis -a -vis outages that may be taken by MSETCL the public is duly informed through newspaper advertisements. But, no prior information could be made to the Respondents regarding interruptions/outages because of their very nature of beyond the control of MSEDCL. ;