- (1.) Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) filed a Petition on 5 August, 2014 for seeking clarification in respect of Orders dated 16 August, 2012 issued in Case No. 19 of 2012 and Order dated 11 June, 2014 issued in Case No. 38 of 2014 regarding date of applicability of Public Water Work (PWW) Tariff for MIDC's Water Works & Sewage Treatment Plants.
(2.) The Prayers of the Petitioner are as under: " (i) this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the MSEDCL to apply HT IV category tariff to the Petitioner's water works and sewage treatment plants from 1st August, 2012 onwards; (ii) the claim of the Petitioner in respect of the tariff items be clarified and/or the claim of the Petitioner be allowed; (iii)for such further and other relief as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit."
(3.) The Petitioner in its Petition submitted as under: a. Till June 2010, MSEDCL had levied tariff of HT -IV category to the Public Water Works and Sewage Treatment Plants of the Petitioner. b. On 23 June, 2010, MSEDCL for the first time issued a circular deviating from the Tariff Orders and directed its field officers to apply Industrial Tariff to the Petitioner's water works in case the water is utilized for MIDC area and /or adjoining areas for drinking purpose. c. The Commission passed the tariff Order dated 12 September, 2010 applicable to the MSEDCL consumer in Case No.111 of 2009. The MSEDCL continued to apply HT -I Industrial tariff category to the Petitioner's water works. d. In respect of the aforesaid action of the MSEDCL, the Petitioner had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Bhandup. However, the case of the Petitioner was rejected by CGRF. Thereafter being aggrieved by the Order of CGRF, the Petitioner approached the Ombudsman. On 7 June, 2011, the Ombudsman allowed the representation of the MIDC by setting aside the Order of CGRF, Bhandup and directed MSEDCL to apply HT -IV Tariff category to the water works of the Petitioner. e. MSEDCL then approached the Bombay High Court against the Order of the Ombudsman dated 25 August, 2011. The Bombay High Court passed an interim Order dated 20 December, 2011 and directed the Petitioner to pay the bills raised under HT -IV category and further directed to deposit the differential amount in a no lien escrow account. The matter is still pending before the High Court. f. The Petitioner also submitted that the Commission has issued Tariff Order dated 16 August, 2012 in Case No. 19 of 2012. The applicability of PWW category has been specified in that Order as follows: "Applicable for use of Electricity / Power Supply at high Voltage for pumping of water, purification of water and other allied activities related with Public Water Supply Schemes and Sewage Treatment Plants provided such Public Water Supply Schemes and sewage Treatment Plants are owned, operated and managed by Local Self Government Bodies, like Gram Panchayat, Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation including Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, and cantonment boards; Public Water Supply Schemes and Sewage Treatment Plants (including other allied activities) owned, operated and managed by any other Agency other than Local Self Government Body (excluding Maharashtra Jeevan pradhikaran) shall not be eligible for HT IV Tariff and shall be billed as per either HT II (A) or HT II (B) or as the case may be, except those covered in HT I." g. It is submitted that, on 13 September, 2012, a meeting was held between the Petitioner and MSEDCL, both being State Government entities to consider the issues relating to Tariff for MIDC water works. However, the MSEDCL failed to take action in accordance with the said Minutes of the Meeting. The MSEDCL arbitrarily went on categorizing the water works of the Petitioner throughout the State under different heads including commercial category. h. It is submitted that the Petitioner had previously approached this Commission seeking clarification and relief relating to the direction to the MSEDCL to apply the tariff under HT IV category by filing the Petition being Case No.82 of 2013. But, the aforesaid Petition was disposed of by the Commission vide its Order dated 6 August, 2013 on the ground that consumer categorization and category wise tariff can be decided only at the time of tariff determination process under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003. i. Thereafter, the Petitioner had appeared and filed its representation before the Commission in the public hearing which was held on 28 February, 2014 in Case 38 of 2014. j. The Commission has passed the Order dated 11 June, 2014 in Case No.38 of 2014, inter alia, opined that the water works of the Petitioner is akin to the services rendered by the Public Water Works owned, operated and managed by local self government bodies as it supplies water to industries as well as for residential purposes in general. Therefore, the Commission in the said Order has ruled that the tariff which is applicable to Public Water Works category shall be applicable to the MIDC. k. However, the date of applicability of Public Water Works (PWW) tariff to the MIDC has not been mentioned inadvertently in the said Order. ;