- (1.) The Commission had passed an Order in Case No. 83 of 2012 on 5 February, 2014 in a Petition filed by M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited (CGL), with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) and, subsequently, M/s Jalgaon Energy Private Limited (JEPL) as Respondents. MSEDCL has filed an Application on 7 March, 2014 for Review of that Order.
(2.) The prayers of MSEDCL are as follows: "a) This Commission be pleased to call for the records and proceedings relating to the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by this Commission in Case No. 83 of 2012, and after going through the legality and propriety therefore be pleased to review and modify the same, to the extent of the finding given by the Commission in respect of suppression and misrepresentation by the Petitioner, the fundamental error that mere mention of the order dated 24.05.2010 in Case No. 62 of 2009 will obviate the power of MSEDCL to enter into Franchisee for Single Point Supply, various findings on merit on the disputes and selective reliance on the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 105 of 2007. b) That this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to expeditiously hear the above matter. c) For such further and other consequential reliefs, as in the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
(3.) In its Application, MSEDCL has stated that: 3.1 MSEDCL's Petition for in -principle approval of the MoU route for selection of a Distribution Franchisee, etc. was decided by the Commission in its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No. 62 of 2009. CGL sought clarification of that Order and consequential directions in Case No. 83 of 2012 with regard to the appointment of a Distribution Franchisee for the Jalgaon Area of supply as detailed in the Request for Proposal (RFP) floated by MSEDCL under the Competitive Bidding Process initiated by it around November, 2010. MSEDCL had raised issues of jurisdiction and maintainability in its Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 5 of 2012 in those proceedings. The Commission decided Case No. 83 of 2012 through its Order dated 5 February, 2014. 3.2 During the proceedings of Case No. 83 of 2012, the Commission had constituted a Committee of its Officers to report on certain matters. MSEDCL had filed its objections to the Committee's Report, and has also not given up its contentions raised as preliminary issues through its MA No. 5 of 2012 in that Case. 3.3 At para. 43 (VI) of its Order dated 5 February, 2012, the Commission ruled that: "The Commission observed that the emergence of the dispute between the parties ab initio has been arise due to misrepresentation and suppression of the facts after issuance of RFP and not adhering to the terms and conditions of RFP and carving out of designated area of successful bidder i.e. Petitioner [CGL] to the Respondent No. 2 [JEPL] by the Respondent No. 1 [MSEDCL] and entering into an agreement by Respondent No. 1 with Respondent No. 2 subsequently. There are no quarrels with the Order passed by the Commission on 24 May, 2010. The terminal and pecuniary issues has been arising due to the contractual obligations between the parties. Whereas for adjudication of such disputes, the remedy is dispute resolution mechanism as per the agreements or remedy lies in the Court of Law. Hence, we hold that the parties will have the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under the framework of their governing agreements for redressal of their grievances." 3.4 The Commission has erred in coming to the conclusion of misrepresentation purportedly made by MSEDCL to CGL without any evidence being led by the parties. 3.5 The impugned Order does not deal with the issue raised by MSEDCL, namely that MSEDCL was within its rights to appoint a Franchisee if the consumer applied for a single -point supply. The Commission has also failed to take into consideration the essential bearing and ambit of the Tariff Orders passed by it from 2006 permitting a Franchisee model for single -point supply. 3.6 Clarification by the Commission of its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No. 62 of 2009 was not called for. 3.7 The Commission erred in not taking into consideration the binding provisions of Section 86 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003. 3.8 The Commission has misconstrued the format of the Agreement used by MSEDCL and JEPL without reference to the context in which the application for appointment as Franchisee was made by JEPL and granted by MSEDCL, namely the Commission's Tariff Orders since 2006 which directed MSEDCL to enter into a Franchisee model in case of single -point supply. 3.9 Mere reference to the Order in Case No. 62 of 2009, while admittedly not undertaking of any steps by MSEDCL and JEPL under ratio decidendi and crux of the Order ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commission, Thus, there is error apparent on the face of the record. 3.10 The Commission, having come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the facts and grant relief as clarified, has given findings on facts and law which were not required to decide the issue of jurisdiction raised by MSEDCL. ;