- (1.) This order shall dispose of a group of five Letters Patent Appeal, which are directed against common judgment dated 25.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing a set of five writ petitions filed by the appellant-Dak-shin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for brevity 'DHBVNL'). In the writ petitions, the appellant had challenged order dated 20.12.2007 (P-9), passed by the Electricity Ombudsman (Vidyut Lokpal), Haryana, who has directed the appellant-DHBVNL to pay interest w.e.f. 10.12.2003 on consumption security and meter security deposited by the consumer-respondent No. 3 at 6% which was the bank rate prevailing at that time. The basic reason for issuance of direction was that M/s Faridabad Bolt-tight Industries (P) Limited- respondent No. 3 in LPA No. 671 of 2010 had made security deposit of Rs. 3,31,200/- and Rs. 2,93,250/-, in lieu of the different sanctioned load. Through the Manufacturers Association Faridabad, they had filed CWP No. 2847 of 2006 in this Court, which was disposed of on 24.02.2006, with a direction to the appellant-DHBVNL-respondent No. 2 to take final decision, as the matter was already under their consideration. After issuance of direction, the appellant issued sale instructions allowing interest at saving bank rate for the financial year 2005-06. However, it did not satisfy the Manufacturers Association, Faridabad and they claimed interest from 1992 and at a higher rate. Feeling aggrieved, the Manufacturers Association, Faridabad approached the Harayna Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity 'the Commission'). The Commission exercising power under Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 'the 2003 Act'), issued directions vide memo No. HERC/742-744 dated 27.07.2006 to the appellant being the licensee to pay interest at the bank rate determined by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Respondent No. 3, demanded interest on consumer security to be paid by the appellant from 1992. Accordingly they approached the Electricity Ombudsman who held that interest on consumer's security deposit was discontinued by treating the security to be advanced consumption deposit and therefore, interest was not payable w.e.f. 1992. It was, however, held that the 2003 Act, provided that consumer like respondent No. 3 was entitled to payment of interest w.e.f. 10.12.2003 when the 2003 Act came into force. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that the Electricity Ombudsman determined the rate of interest at 6% and directed the payment from 10.12.2003, when the 2003 Act was enacted. The operative part of the order dated 20.12.2007 (P-9) passed by the Electricity Ombudsman reads as under :- Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the licensee DHBVNL to pay the interest on security deposit at bank rate w.e.f. 10.12.2003 onwards. The Bank rate is defined as under :- The rate at which the Reserve Bank of India lends funds to the National Bank as notified by R.B.I. from time to time. The bank rate w.e.f. April 2003 till 30.8.2007 is 6%. Therefore, I direct the licensee to pay the interest on consumption security and meter security @ bank rate of 6% from 10.12.2003 to 31.03.2007. The interest for the financial year 2005-06 was paid @ saving bank rate on 3.5% should also be paid @ 6%. From April 2006 to 26.07.2006 also be paid @ 6% per year. The amount of interest from 10.12.2003 to 31.03.2007 should be credited to the current bills of the applicant from the month of Jan 2008 onwards if not already paid and the interest for the current financial year i.e. 2007-08 may be paid in the month of April 2008 @ 6% per year.
(2.) The aforesaid order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after referring to Sections 82, 85 and 86 of the 2003 Act, came to the conclusion that the Commission is not only obliged to determine the rate of tariff but it has also to protect the interest of the consumer, which is specified in the statement of reasons and objects of the 2003 Act. According to the learned Single Judge, Section 86 of the 2003 Act categorical vested the power in the State Commission to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, therefore, a distribution company can only charge those tariffs which are determined by the Commission. Accordingly, it was held that numerous duties are cast by Section 42 of the 2003 Act on the distribution licensee and open access. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Section 47(4) of the 2003 Act, which reads as under :- Section 47. (Power to require security) :- (4) The distribution licensee shall pay interest equivalent to the bank rate or more, as may be specified by the concerned State Commission, on the security referred to in sub-section (1) and refund such security on the request of the person who gave such security.
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the consumer like respondent No. 3 is entitled to interest upon consumption and meter security and one of the duties cast on the Commission is to ensure that the distribution licensee like the appellant discharges that obligation. It is appropriate to mention that the Commission issued directions on 27.07.2006 (P-8) to the appellant that interest on all consumer Securities be paid with immediate effect, at the bank rate determined by the Reserve Bank of India. The interest accruing to the credit of the consumer like respondent No. 3 was to be adjusted in energy bills of April or May of every year or in the final bill if permanent disconnection is sought by the consumer during the year. It was the aforesaid directions issued by the Commission, which was challenged before the Electricity Ombudsman, who has passed the order on 20.12.2007 and the same was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.;