Case no.24:2020 judgement FINAL - Gujarat Electricity ...

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, GUJARAT STATE

Polytechnic Compound, Barrack No.3, Ambawadi,

Ahmedabad-380015

CASE NO.24/2020

Appellant: M/s Manaksia Coated Metals & Industries Ltd,

Plot No. 01, Survey No. 421,

Madhav Villa society, Satapar Road,

Anjar, Kutch-370110

Represented by: Shri Vikas Srivastava, AGM, A/c., Authorized Representative

Shri Pinakin Joshi, AGM, Com., Authorized Representative

Shri Bimal Vaidya. AGM, Manager, Authorized Representative

V/s. Respondent: Executive Engineer,

Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited,

Division office, Anjar, Kutch-370110.

Represented by: Shri J.M.Kasta, Executive Engineer, PGVCL, D/o., Anjar

Shri R.G.Bokhani, Dy. Supt., Accounts, PGVCL, D/o., Anjar.

:: Proceedings ::

1.0. The Appellant had submitted representation aggrieving with the order No. 22

dated 14/02/2020 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal forum, PGVCL,

Bhuj, in case no. PG-03-003-2019-20. As per the Section 42(6), Electricity Act

2003 and Regulation 3.19 of GERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations,2019

the representation was registered at this office as Case No.24/2020. Hearing of

this case was kept on 20.10.2020, 18.12.2020, 28.01.2021 and 15.02.2020.

2.0. The Appellant has represented the case as under:

2.1. The Appellant is having HT Connection at village Chandarani Ta. Anjar, Dist.

Kutch having contract demand of 1500 KVA. The Appellant was suffering from

interruption on 11 KV system and for that he approached before the Respondent

many times to resolve the interruption issue. Further, The Appellant submitted

that he needed load extension for 1000 KVA in the above HT connection and for

that it was advised by the Respondent to opt 66 KV system. Accordingly, the

Appellant has applied for 2600 KVA load extension in his connection, total load

demand of 1500+2600=4100 KVA on dated 20.03.2017.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

2.2. The Respondent jointly with GETCO surveyed the site of the Appellant and issued

an estimate vide letter No. 856 dated 10.05.2017 of Rs. 76.45 Lakh. Wherein it is

clearly mentioned that additional power demand can be catered from 66 KV

Khokhara sub-station by erection of 13.0 KM of 66 KV single circuit DOG line on

Double Circuit (Panther) tower from 66 KV Khokhara sub-station to switch yard of

Appellant. The power supply shall be released after completion of work as per

attached estimate and on contingent basis.

2.3. The Appellant had paid the estimate Rs. 1,95,75,847.00 as a Security Deposit to

PGVCL and Rs. 77,14,085/- as Supervision charges of GETCO on dated

22.06.2017 as per estimate served by the Respondent. An agreement was also

executed with the Respondent on dated 04.07.2017. Thereafter the Appellant had

allotted the works to M/s. Hi-tech Power-Rajkot the approved contractor of

GETCO. As per procedure, meeting was also held on 01.09.2017 with Additional

Chief Engineer, GETCO. Thereafter work was started by the contractor as per the

norms defined by GETCO under direct supervision of representative of GETCO.

The Appellant submitted that the work was divided in 3 (Three) phases. The First

phase was of switch yard and other things at 66 KV Khokhara Sub-station end.

The second phase was of commissioning of switch yard at the factory premises of

the Appellant. Above both works are completed and duly inspected by the

representative of GETCO.

2.4. The Appellant submitted that third phase work is of erection of 66 KV line between

66 KV Khokhara sub-station to the premises of the Appellant. The 50% work of

erection of towers were made by the contractor, the rest of the line, the erection of

tower, land owner objected and stopped the said work. The Appellant submitted

that contractor had tried to sort out the said issue but particularly in the village of

Khokhara, Rapar and Chandrani the land owner was not ready to co-operate in

this work. The Appellant was ready to pay the compensation to the affected land

owner as per Government rules for getting Right of Way (ROW) but the Appellant

didn’t succeed for getting ROW.

2.5. Later on, the Appellant approached before the GETCO authority to intervene and

resolve the above issue. The representative of GETCO authority had tried to

resolve the said issue but the same was not resolved. Hence, GETCO authority has

approached the Hon’ble Collector office vide letter no. 5106 dated 27.12.2017.

Hon’ble Collector (District Magistrate) Bhuj passed an order against the land

owners and allowed to carry out the works as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

and the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

2.6. The Appellant received a copy of order passed by Hon’ble Collector (District

Magistrate) Bhuj on dated 24.07.2019 and dated 03.08.2019 against the various

land owners. The Order passed in response to application made by Executive

Engineer (Construction) GETCO, Anjar, vide application No. 5106 dated

27.12.2017. In this order, it was directed to carry out the work as per application

and if required ask the police protection. The Appellant submitted that from the

above order, it is established that the matter is still Sub-Judicial and beyond the

control of the Appellant and same is known to GETCO authority as well as

Respondent PGVCL authority. The Appellant further submitted that main motive

behind extension of load 1500 KVA to 4100 KVA was to shift the existing HT

connection from 11 KV system to 66 KV system to get quality power supply to

avoid frequent interruption on the existing 11 KV system to avoid heavy financial

losses.

2.7. The Appellant received the letter no. 4839 dated 25.06.2018 from Respondent

PGVCL regarding deemed release of power supply and to start billing as per

contract demand. It is submitted by Appellant that they were ready to avail power

supply of 66 KV system with 4100 KVA contract demand but power supply was

not released physically by the Respondent.

2.8. The Appellant has pointed out the certain point as referred by the Respondent in

the letter No. 4839 dated 25.06.2018.

I. As per Para no. 2 of the said letter “As per clause no. 4.33 (2) of GERC

(Electricity Supply Code and Related Matter) Notification 4 of 2015, if the

applicant chooses to get work done on his own, he shall get the work done

within time framed specified in GERC, (SOP) regulations 2005”. As per the

provision of GERC regulation, Appellant i.e., M/s. Manaksia Coated Metals

and Industries Ltd. have to complete the work within 180 days from the

date of the payment of the estimate. The Appellant submitted that he was

not willing to carry out the work under option III as per clause No. 4.33(2)

but Appellant was compelled to opt for option-III by the GETCO. Further

the Appellant said that if GETCO would have carried out the work under

Option-I than they would also have faced the same problem of ROW as

Appellant are facing. Appellant stated that as far as 180 days’ time period,

without defining the quantum of work is concerned, it is submitted that

the Appellant paid the estimate on 22.06.2017 and executed an agreement

on 04.07.2017 with Respondent PGVCL and therefore deemed date of

completion of 180 days would be 31.12.2017. Executive Engineer

(construction) GETCO, Anjar, had filed an application before Hon’ble

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

Collector, Bhuj (District Magistrate) on 27.12.2017 that is before deemed

completion period 180 days. Therefore, as per GERC (SOP

Regulations),2005 “The duration would exclude the time attributable to

the consumer/local authority. As the subject matter for line erection is

still sub-judicial which may also be considered in the present

representation. The order passed by the Hon’ble Collector, Bhuj, (District

Magistrate) on dated 24.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 and as per directives,

Appellant had paid the fees for providing police protection and till date the

line work is not completed. In light of above, Para No. 2 of the said letter

must be treated as null and void.

II. As per Para No. 4 of the said letter it is mentioned that the notice was

issued by this office letter no. 3282 dated 26.04.2018 to complete the work

as per clause no. 4.33 (2) of GERC (Electricity Supply code and related

matter) Regulations, Notification No. 4 of 2015, so as to avail within 60

days from the date of notice. On completion of notice period i.e., 60 days

from date of issue of notice, consumer are required to pay applicable

minimum charges without any further notice. Notice period of 60 days is

over by day 25.06.2018.

With the above, the Appellant stated that he had not received the notice

No. 3282 dated 26.04.2018 so the above-mentioned Para must be treated

as null and void.

2.9. The Appellant submitted that grievance was filed before CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj and

grievance was heard by CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj on 21.12.2019 i.e., after 82 days and

after conducting second hearing on 17.01.2020, order was passed by the CGRF,

PGVCL, Bhuj which is against the natural law of justice. Appellant had pointed

out the certain arguments against the order passed by CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj as

under:

I. As per Para No. 6.6 of order of CGRF, PGVCL Bhuj, it is highlighted clause

no. 4.33 (2) of GERC (Electricity supply code and related matter)

Regulations 2015. As Para 2 “Provided that if the applicant wishes to carry

out the works himself, he shall be permitted to do so under supervision of

licensee’s officer. As requested earlier, the Appellant was compelled to do

so.

II. As per Para 4 “provided further that if the applicant chooses to get the

extension work done on his own, he shall get the work done within time

frame specified in GERC (Standard of performance of distribution licensee)

Regulations, 2005, as amended from time to time, failing which the

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

licensee shall issue notice to complete work and avail power supply within

60 days from such notice, on completion of notice period he shall be liable

to pay demand charges and minimum monthly charges as applicable.”

We have put up that as per GERC (SOP) Regulation, 2005, “The duration

would exclude the time attributable to the consumer/local authority” and

as narrated above the matter was sub-judicial so the time frame cannot be

decided and work is still going on under local police protection. Further as

requested we had not received any notice to start minimum demand

charge billing as per deemed released of contract demand of 4100 KVA.

Further as per clause No. 6.8 of order of CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj submitted a

Xerox copy of the mail of so called 60 days’ notice addressed to our office

mail address, Sir so far as finance matter is concerned the notice which is

prescribed to be sent through “RPAD” is not sent through RPAD and

PGVCL is not having undelivered envelop of the said notice. Further,

Appellant beg to submit that to instruct PGVCL officials to hire third party

agency to verify the delivery even of the sent mail because Appellant afraid

that notice is not served through E-mail also.

III. In the scenario as mentioned above, the clause no. 4.33 (2) of GERC

(Electricity Supply Code & Related matters), regulations 2015, do not

confirm and suffice the issue of the Appellant.

2.10. During the hearing of 20.10.2020 the representative of Appellant retreated certain

above paras as per his representation and further submitted as under:

1. It is submitted that during line erection work under option III, way leave

issues were created and for that line works was not completed to resolve

the way leave issues an appeal was filed before the collector (District

Magistrate) Bhuj on 27.12.2017 which was decided in the month of May

2019. As per the directive of the order passed by the District Magistrate,

Bhuj line erection work was started with police protection and are in

progress but certain works are pending. Appellant stated that out of 45

tower erection, 35 number of tower works are completed for erection 66 KV

line.

2. Notice issued by the Respondent vide letter dated 26.04.2018 was not

received by the Appellant through RPAD or E-mail. The Appellant stated

that after the 2 months after receipt of energy bill issued by the

Respondent Appellant had stated correspondence with the Respondent

related with minimum charge billing.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

3. Earlier, the Appellant was fed from 11 KV system for 1500 KVA contract

demand for Steel Mill purpose and to avoid interruptions in 11KV Power

system, the Appellant demanded additional load of 2600 KVA, total of

4100 KVA from the 66 KV system.

4. The Appellant submitted load reduction application was made by him

before the Respondent after completion of 1 year but it was rejected by the

Respondent. Further he stated that load reduction application is not part

in the present grievance.

5. The Appellant pray that to grant some relief on part of issue of bill for

recovery of minimum charges.

2.11. Vide letter dated. 11.02.2021, the Appellant submitted reply in rejoinder against

the reply filed by the Respondent vide letter dated.09.02.2021 and stated as

under:

1) The Appellant is into the business of manufacturing of value-added steel

products consisting of continuous stripped Galvanizing line and

continuous color coating line, which requires continuous un-interrupted

electric power supply. The Appellant can’t afford any kind of interruption

in power supply. The Appellant had severally informed to PGVCL that our

entire production hampers for more than 12 to 14 hours for each

interruption or un-scheduled stoppages. The Appellant have to bear losses

of approximate Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- for each interruption/ un-

scheduled power shut down. In case of interrupted/ un-scheduled power

supply, our molten metal in furnace gets solidified leading to substantial

damages and huge losses to the Appellant company. Hence, the

submission raised by PGVCL with respect to non-continuous type of

consumer is totally wrong. The Appellant is having continuous type of

consumer.

2) The Appellant said that suffering from interruption on 11 KV system

resulting into huge financial losses and as per advice from the Respondent

additional load of 2600KVA, totaling to 4100KVA was applied under 66KV

System as on 11 KV system village feeder line is technically not competent

and hence not possible. The maximum electric power supply from 11 KV is

possible up to 2500 KVA. Hence, technically PGVCL cannot supply electric

power of 4100 KVA on available 11 KV system. However, they started

charging us billing on 4100 KVA from date 26.06.2018 on 11 KV system

which is totally wrong, unjustifiable and unfair.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

3) While applying for enhanced electric power supply, we had shown our

willingness to choose for option –I, means GETCO will carry out the entire

work. However, the appellant had been compelled to choose the option III

by GETCO by showing the reason that it is normal practice that option-I is

for electric power supply to government department, option-II is for electric

power supply to semi government department and option-III is for electric

power supply to private consumer. Hence, being a private consumer, if we

wish to obtained 4100 KVA power on 66 KV system, the appellant will be

allotted option-III only as per their normal practice, means the entire work

will be carried out by us.

4) The appellant has completed the 100% work of Part-I at GETCO end and

100% work of part II at the Appellant end well within a time frame as

decided and under the supervision of GETCO.

5) As third phase work part III of 66KV line between 66 KV khokhara

substation and our premises was started on defined towers. The 50% work

of erection of towers were done smoothly well within time line, however, in

case of rest of the line some land owners of whom the towers were to be

erected on their land, objected and stopped our work. They started

threatening to our authorized contractor’s labors/worker that if any one

starts work, they will kill them. They also attempted to attack on workers

causing the situation of riots and law & order. The Appellant had put all

over efforts to resolve the issue, but failed. The Appellant had shown

willingness to compensate them for their occupied land, crop

compensation and others as per the rules, however they were not ready to

accept the same. Even the GETCO authorities had also conducted the

meeting with land owners to resolve the issue, but failed. The Appellant

have invested approx. Rs. 611 lacs. All our efforts went into vain in spite of

our several request to land owners to accept the compensation as well as

several rounds of meeting by GETCO. Our contractor had also tried at his

level best to sort out the issue but failed. Finally, The Appellant

approached to collector and district magistrate to intervene in the matter.

Hon’ble collector and district magistrate passed the order against land

owners and directed them to co-operate and if they do not co-operate, then

we will have to take police protection, and attempted to start the work. But

the same also gets failed as they started attacking on labors/workers and

interrupted our 66 KV line. It became the matters of law and order and

riots. They started threatening to workers to kill them with dire

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

consequences. If anything, happening which the consumer could not

reasonably prevent or control, the act is hit by the force majeure. This

ROW issue was out of control of the Appellant/PGVCL, GETCO or collector

or District Magistrate or Police.

6) The India Contract Act, 1872 (“ACT”) contains two provisions which are

relevant to force majeure and Act of GOD. Section 32 of the Act deals with

contingent contracts and inter alia provides that if a contract is based on

the happening of a future event and such event becomes impossible, the

contract becomes void. Section 56 of the Act deals with frustration of a

contract and provides that a contract becomes void inter alia if it becomes

impossible, by reason of an event which a promisor could not prevent,

after the contract made. When the entire contract becomes void and not

enforceable by law, none of the agreement/contract clause shall be valid

and not enforceable by law.

7) GERC, clause no. 4.33 (2) shall not be applicable to the case of the

Appellant. So far as 180 days period is concerned, it is to inform you that

we have paid estimate on 22.06.2017 and agreement executed on

04.07.2017. The deemed date of completion of 180 days period would be

on 31.12.2017 and Executive Engineer (Construction) GETCO, Anjar had

filed an application before Hon’ble collector, Bhuj (District Magistrate) on

27.12.2017 i.e., before completion deemed 180 days. As per GERC (SOP)

Regulations, 2005 “The duration would exclude the time attributable to

the consumer/local authority” and as narrated above the matter is of law

and order, still sub-judicial.

8) Further, it is submitted that the contract/agreement entered with PGVCL

becomes null and void and not enforceable by law under section 32 of

Contract Act 1872 and section 52 of Contract Act 1872. Hence, the

question of applicability of GERC clause No. 4.33 (2) does not arise at all.

The imposition of this clause on us is not legal and against the law of

natural justice.

9) It is stated that the Appellant have not received any intimation from

PGVCL that supply of electrical energy is available as per application of the

Appellant, till today, even though minimum billing started as deemed

release of additional 2600 KVA from June 2018 which is again

contradiction of MOU signed by us in which it is clearly mentioned that

DISCOM should issue notice to avail power supply within 60 days on

completion of work. Till today work of erection of 66 KV line is not

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

completed due to ROW issues narrated in detail in our prime

representation as well in our additional written submission dated

22.01.2021 before the forum. So whatever billing PGVCL has started for

4100 KVA from June 2018 must be withdrawn.

Moreover, point to be noted that the 60 days’ Notice referred by PGVCL No.

PGVCL/COMM.3282 Dt. .26.04.2018 is not received by the Appellant, so

may be treated as cancelled and clause No. 4.33 (2) of GERC is not

applicable to consumer under option III.

The appellant has represented vide various letters dated

11.07.2018,19.07.2018,25.07.2018, & 01.08.2018 for extension of time

limit to complete the work and hold the bill for applicable charges up to 08

to 10 months as per additional demand of 2600 KVA to PGVCL, Rajkot.

The plea of the Appellant for extension in time limit had been rejected by

the Respondent, PGVCL.

10) The Appellant submitted that the failure on the part of the consumer to

fulfil any of the terms and conditions of this clause against the consumer

or be deemed a breach of this agreement, in so far as such failure is

considered by the state government of arise from ‘Force majeure’ and if

through ‘Force majeure’ the fulfilment by the consumer of any of the terms

and conditions of this agreement be delayed the period of such delay shall

be added to the period fixed by this agreement. In this clause, the

expression “Force majeure” means Act of God, war, insurrection, riot, civil

commotion, strike, earth-quake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning,

explosion, fire, earthquake and any other happening which the consumer

could not reasonably prevent or control”.

11) Central government act, section 2(ff) in the Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission (India Electricity Grid code) Regulations 2010 “force majeure”

means any event which is beyond the control of the persons involves

which they could not foresee or with reasonable amount of diligence could

not have foreseen or which could not be prevented and which

substantially affects the performance by person such being the following

including but not limited to: (a) acts of god, natural Phenomena, floods,

droughts, earthquakes and epidemic ,(b) enemy acts of any governments

domestic or foreign, war declare, or undeclare hostilities, priorities

quarantine embargoes, (c) riot or civil commotion (d) Grids failure not

attributable to the person.”

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

12) It is further submitted that if GETCO would have had carried out the

project under option-I then they also would have had face the same

problem of ROW as face by the Appellant. Appellant is ready to opt option I

and line works to be completed by GETCO and ready to pay applicable

charges incurred by the GETCO for remaining line works.

13) The Appellant stated that such clause in favour of the consumer providing

for force measure must be read into the contract with the licensee and if

such measure is not read in the contract then the contract would be

clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and would be hit by the provision of

articles No. 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India.

14) In reference to letter No. 856 dated 10.05.2017, the Respondent has

clearly stated the “however, power shall be released after completion of

works as per attached estimate and on contingent basis”. This clearly

interpret that neither the Respondent PGVCL and GETCO is able to supply

the electric power nor consumer is able to receive the supply of the

electricity energy unless and until the complete erection of line is

completed.

The Appellant is very keen to get 66 KV uninterrupted power supply the

allegation made by the Respondent that Appellant is not interested in

drawing electric supply of 4100 KVA on 66 KV line is totally wrong.

15) The Appellant submitted the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

“M/s. Northern India Iron and steel Co. Vs. State of Haryana reported at

1976 AIR 1100, 1977 SCR (3) 677 wherein apex court has pronounced

that the consumer is entitled to a proportionate reduction of demand

charges in the event of Lock out, fire or any other circumstances

considered by the supplier beyond the control of the consumer, that is to

say, if the consumer is not able to consume any part of the electric energy

due to any circumstance beyond its control and which is considered by the

board to be so, then it shall get a proportionate reduction in the demand

charge”

The Appellant submitted another observation of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in “Satyabrata Ghose Vs. Mugneeram Bangur to Energy Watchdog

V. CERC, the Supreme Court has held that when a force majeure event is

relatable to a clause (express or implied) in a contract, it is governed by

section 32 of the Act whereas if a force majeure event occurs dehors the

contract, section 56 of the Act applies.”

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

16) The Respondent, PGVCL has submitted false and misleading information.

PGVCL has never accorded right to equality to all customer under option-I,

or option–III. During our last submission/arguments before your lordship

on 28.01.2021, your lordship has raised a comment on treatment PGVCL

gives to other customers availing option-I & option-II for non-completion of

work? Whether the same time period of 180 days is applicable or not? The

Respondent was not able to answer the question. He submitted that it is

not under his knowledge and hence need to confirm from his department.

The Appellant submitted that no equal treatment was being given by

PGVCL to all customers availing option–I, option-II & option-III. We

submitted that the line work of 66 KV sub-station at Navagaon was

completed in more than 912 days due to ROW problems which is under

the same jurisdiction of the Respondent i.e., Anjar jurisdiction. Your

lordship may ask to respondent that whether the same treatment was

given or not? Whether the minimum billing amount was charges/ billed

beyond 180 days to the customer by considering deemed supply of power?

We request your lordship to ask the respondent to submit the details of

this Navagaon 66 KV project and treatment given to its customers availing

option I & option II.

17) In view of above, the Appellant pray as under: -

a. The billing started as per deemed release of CD 4100 KVA from July 2018

till today required to be withdrawn and revise the bills as per CD 1500

KVA and as per tariff. The excess amount so billed and paid must be

refunded or adjusted in account of the Appellant with interest.

b. Notice for 60 days must not be served on completion of the prescribed

work as per the estimate paid by the Appellant.

c. To direct the Respondent, PGVCL and GETCO to co-operate the

Appellant for works completion.

3.0. The Respondent submitted reply against the representation made by the Appellant

is as under:

3.1. M/s.Manaksia Coated Metals, & Industries Limited is having Electric connection,

barring No. 31501 with contract demand of 1500 KVA from 11 KV Power Supply.

on 20.03.2017. The Appellant had applied for additional load of 2600 KVA that is

total 4100 KVA contract demand from 66 KV Power Supply.

3.2. The Appellant had paid the estimate under option-III i.e. (consumer will carry out

line work) on dated 29.06.2017. It is submitted by the Respondent that vide letter

No. 856 dated 10.05.2017 from GETCO it is clearly mention that “during the

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

extension of line, NOC from the land owner shall be obtained by the Applicant.

Also, any way leave problem, Compensation, legal dispute, statutory permission

from any raise from Government/GIDC private land owner, farmer, other assets

etc. shall have to be resolved by the Applicant at his cost. on dated 04.07.2017,

Appellant has executed an agreement with the Respondent.

3.3. It is stated that as per the approved estimate, the Appellant has to erect 13.0KM,

66KV single circuit dog line on DC (panther)tower from 66 KV khokhara sub-

station to the switch yard of the Appellant located at land survey No. 396 village

Chandrani Ta.Anjar Dist. Kutch under supervision of representative of GETCO.

3.4. On 01.09.2017, after payment of estimate amount Kickoff meeting between

GETCO and the Appellant was held for providing guideline to carry out work as

per planning and approved drawing, Vendor approval, inspection requirement and

any other issues for the erection of line under option-III, the Appellant may like to

clarify. During the kick-off meeting the Appellant had been given a target for date

of completion of work is on 31.12.2017.

3.5. The Respondent submitted that as per clause No. 4.33 (2) GERC (Electricity

Supply Code and related matter) Regulations, 2015, if applicant/consumer choose

to get extension work done on his own he shall get the work done within the time

frame specified in the GERC’s Regulation, 2005 that is consumer has to complete

the work within 180 days from the date of payment of estimate.

3.6. It is submitted by the Respondent that as per the letter dated 05.01.2018 from

ACE (GETCO), it is clearly mentioned that as per the approved major works, as per

part I and part III was found pending. Hence, GETCO requested the Appellant to

expedite the pending work of feeder bay and line erection. It was also informed to

Appellant mentioning norms of GERC that after payment of estimate under

option-III, the consumer has to complete the work within 180 days. In the case of

Appellant 6 months’ time period is completed but work is not completed by the

Appellant. In this context, the Respondent shall take suitable action as per the

regulation for the billing of minimum charges.

3.7. Vide letter no. 430 date 17.01.2018 and Vide letter no.1643 dated 27.02.2018, the

Respondent informed the Appellant to complete the line works but the said

approved work was not completed by the Appellant within specified time of 180

days. Therefore notice was issued by the corporate office of the Respondent vide

letter no. 3282 date 26.04.2018 through E-mail on official E-mail Id of the

Appellant to complete the line works as per the clause no. 4.33 (2) of GERC

(Electricity supply code and related matter) Regulations, 2015 so as to avail the

power supply within 60 day from the date of notice on completion of notice period

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

that is 60 days from the date of notice, the Appellant is require to pay minimum

charges applicable without any further notice. Notice period of 60 days is over on

dated 25.06.2018.

3.8. The Respondent has submitted the detail statement of the actual demand drawn

from June 2017 to December 2019 and stated that the Appellant has consumed

the power up to 2329 KVA in the month of August 2019.

31501 M/s Manaksia Coated Metals & Industries Ltd

Sr. No Month Unit Cons Contract Demand Actual Max

Demand

1 Jun-17 134300 1500 358

2 July-17 106640 1500 348

3 Aug-17 155760 1500 360

4 Sep-17 167700 1500 362

5 Oct-17 143860 1500 378

6 Nov-17 155120 1500 392

7 Dec-17 161620 1500 408

8 Jan-18 164690 1500 484

9 Feb-18 167670 1500 553

10 Mar-18 139770 1500 615

11 April-18 184120 1500 548

12 May-18 187160 1500 659

13 Jun-18 278120 1500 710

14 July-18 317610 4100 915

15 Aug-18 317190 4100 732

16 Sep-18 283690 4100 896

17 Oct-18 251000 4100 759

18 Nov-18 350280 4100 1190

19 Dec-18 190050 4100 713

20 Jan-19 153170 4100 695

21 Feb-19 188810 4100 613

22 Mar-19 159320 4100 562

23 April-19 261670 4100 1105

24 May-19 432340 4100 1563

25 Jun-19 512150 4100 1976

26 July-19 516720 4100 2036

27 Aug-19 600290 4100 2329

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

28 Sep-19 589780 4100 2260

29 Oct-19 790030 4100 2164

30 Nov-19 782660 4100 1947

31 Dec-19 472990 4100 1761

3.9. The Respondent relied on the general terms and condition for deposit work as

attached with estimate, wherein it is clear at condition no. 6 that “The way leave

clearance for the line works, crop compensation, legal issue, statutory permission

shall be arranged by the applicant at his cost. GECTO will not be responsible for

any delay if any on this account”. Moreover, GETCO has issued notices vide letters

dated 11.01.2018, 11.02.2019, 28.08.2019 and 17.12.2019 informed the

Appellant to complete the line work.

3.10. The Respondent referred the agreement executed between the Appellant and

Respondent and stated that to refer clause No. 2(C), minimum charges as per

contract demand are to be levied from the Appellant after completion of 60 days’

notice period.

3.11. Vide letter No.1643 dated 27.02.2018, Corporate office of the Respondent had

written a letter to the Appellant to complete the line work within 180 days from

the date of payment of estimate. In this notice it was also mentioned that non

completion of work may invite appropriate action as time limit of 180 days is

already over.

3.12. The Respondent submitted that after hearing the Appellant as well as Respondent

and considering the rules and regulation of the GERC, CGRF, PGVCL Bhuj has

decided the subject matter. As per CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj ordered (1) Billing demand

of 4100 KVA after July 2018 charged by the Respondent is in order. Therefore, the

Appellant’s request for revision of bill as per 1500 KVA contract demand cannot be

acceptable. (2) from the correspondence between the Appellant and the

Respondent and between the Appellant and GETCO authority, it is clear that the

Appellant knows all the rules and regulation regarding the completion of works as

well as 60 days’ notice issued by the Respondent to the Appellant. Therefore, the

argument of the Appellant regarding non receipt of 60 days’ time period notice is

meaningless.

3.13. During the hearing of 15.02.2021, the representative of the Respondent reiterated

certain para as per his representation and further submitted rejoinder vide letter

dated.09.02.2021 as under:

1. M/s Manaksia Coated Metals & Industries Limited located at Chandrani,

Anjar Kutch and consumer No. 31501, previously, having HT connection of

contract demand of 1500 KVA on 11 KV system. The 11 KV power supply to

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

the company feds from 11 KV Yamunanagar JGY of 66 KV Dudhai S/s

including the load of residential, commercial, industrial and other categories

consumers. The point of power supply of the appellant is located at the tail

end of feeder i.e., 6.6 KM far from source of power supply. The Appellant is

not having special HT express feeder. Also, consumer no. 31501 is non

continuous type of consumer.

2. As per additional requirement of power supply, M/s Manaksia Coated &

Industries Limited has applied for load extension from 1500 KVA on 11 KV

system to 4100 kVA on 66 KV system to 4100 KVA on 66 KV system on

dated 20.02.2017.

3. The Appellant opted option-III for new power demand. “Option III” Means the

consumer will carry out the entire work.

Applicant/consumer can choose the option of his choice i.e., either option I

or option II or Option III. The Respondent issued an estimate on dated

20.05.2017 which was paid by the Appellant on dated 29.06.2017 for

additional 2600 KVA contract Load i.e., 1500 KVA to 4100 KVA.

In estimate, it is mentioned the terms and conditions as under:

# for the erection of 66 KV line from GETCO’s 66 Khokhra s/s to the premise of

the Appellant the official permission/clearance shall have to be obtained by

party.

4. During the execution of line works, NOC from the land owner shall be

obtained by the Applicant. Also, any way leave problem, compensation, legal

dispute, statutory permission if any raised from government/GIDC, private

land owner, farmer, other agency etc. shall have to be resolved by applicant

at his cost.

5. In estimate part-I (GETCO end): Estimate for deposit work for erection one 66

KV feeder bay at GETCO’s 66 KV Khokhar S/s catering 2600 KVA additional

power supply (Raising CD 1500 KVA on 11 KV to 4100 KVA) on 66 KV in

respect of M/s Manaksia Coated Metals & Industries Limited at village

Chandrani, Tal. Anjat Kutch.

6. In estimate Part II (consumer end) estimate for deposit work of erection one

66 KV feeder bay at M/s Manaksia Coated Metals & Industries Limited at

village Chandrani, Tal. Anjat-Kutch for catering 2600 KVA additional power

supply (Raising CD 1500 KVA on 11 KV to 4100 KVA on 66 KV).

7. In estimate Part III (Line): Estimate for deposit work for erection of 66 KV

line from 66 KV Khokhra S/S to the switchyard of the Appellant at Village

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

Chandrani, Tal. Anjat-Kutch for catering 2600 KVA additional power supply

(Raising CD 1500 KVA on 11 KV to 4100 KVA on 66 KV System.

8. The Respondent relied on the General terms and conditions for deposit

works mentioned.

Under the said terms and conditions.

2. Consumer shall approach ACE (R&C) GETCO, after making payment of

estimate. Applicant shall decide the contractor for erection of feeder bay at

GETCO s/s and erection of line vendors for various equipment from the list

available on GETCO Website (Getcogujarat.com). A kickoff meeting shall be

arranged jointly with engineering and projects department to work out the

planning for drawing approval. Vendor approval, inspection requirement

and any other issues, consumer may like to discuss.

6. The way leave clearance for line work, crop compensations, legal

issues/statutory permission shall be arranged by the applicant at this cost.

GETCO will not be responsible for delay, if any on this account.

10. In case the applicant prefers to undertake the work as per option III of

the estimate he should comply with the following additional requirements.

iii. The arrangement made shall be subject to changes/variations as per

directives of GERC/Electricity Act-2003 or other statutory directives.

v. All Statutory clearances shall be obtained by the consumer.

9. Agreement has executed by the Appellant on dated 04.07.2017 with PGVCL,

Rajkot.

Under the said agreement:

Para 2(a): under the conditions of this contract, the consumer shall take

electrical energy/power supply from the distribution licensee within a

period of sixty days from the date of issue of intimation by the authorized

officer of the distribution licensee that supply of Electrical energy is

available, consumer shall not have right to cancel its application once such

intimation letter is issued by the distribution licensee.

Para 2(b): The provision of this agreement shall be deemed to have come

into force from the date of commencement of supply of energy or the date of

expiry of sixty days’ notice above referred to, whichever is earlier.

Para 2(c): In case the consumer is unable to receive supply of electrical

energy before expiry of sixty days period from the date of issue of intimation

by the authorized officer of the distribution licensee, it shall be considered

as the power supply deemed to have been commenced from the date

immediately following the date of expiry of sixty days period and the

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

consumer shall be liable to pay the MINIMUM CHARGES as may be decided

by GERC and applicable from time to time.

10. Undertaking/Declaration: The Consumer hereby agrees and declared as

under:

10(a): To abide by the provision of the act, GERC Electricity supply code

and provision thereof, Regulation framed by the competent authority under

the provision of act;

10 (c): To pay all other proper charges as become due in accordance with

these regulations and the approved schedule of charges of the distribution

licensee.

11. As per GERC’s clause 4.33 (2), if the applicant/consumer chooses to get the

extension work done on his own, he shall get the work done within the time

frame specified in GERC regulation 2015 (i.e., the consumer have to

complete the work within 180 days from the date of payment of the

estimate)

GERC Regulations,2005, Notification no. 10 of 2005, standard performance

of Distribution licensee: load above 2500 KVA for DISCOM/GEB: Release of

connection: within 180 days after completion of demand notice/formalities

by prospective consumers.

After payment of estimate and execution of agreement and in the meeting, it

was clarified to the consumer that line work is required to be completed up

to dated 31.12.2017 i.e., within 180 days from the date of the payment of

estimate.

12. Moreover, GETCO has issues notice to the appellant for expedite the work of

catering additional 2600 KVA Power demand on 66 KV as per GERC norms

vide their letters No.

17-18/DN/ANJ/PRJ/31-B/5444 DATED 11.01.2018,

18-19/DN/ANJ/PRJ/31-E/4148 DATED 11.02.2019,

19-20/DN/ANJ/PRJ/31-E/2048 DATED 20.08.2019,

19-20/DN/ANJ/PRJ/31-E/3444 DATED 17.12.2019,

13. Earlier, Corporate office PGVCL, Rajkot has informed the consumer to

complete the work vide letter (1) PGVCL/R&C/430 dated 17.01.2018 & (2)

PGVCL/Comm/1643 dated 27.02.2018 but work not completed within 180

days. So notice was issue vide our corporate office letter no. 3282

dated.26.04.2018 sent by e-mail to the official e-mail id of the Appellant

i.e., [email protected] & [email protected] to complete the work as

per clause no. 4.33 (2) of GERC supply code and related matters regulations

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

Notification 4 of 2015, so as to avail power within 60 days from the date of

the notice. On completion of notice period i.e., 60 days from the date of

issue of notice, the consumer is required to pay applicable minimum

monthly charges without any further notice. Notice of 60 days is over by

dated 25.06.2018.

14. As consumer has not completed the work within limit of 180 days from the

date of payment of estimate, also consumer has not submitted any

representation during notice period. Thus, consumer has failed to avail

power supply after 60 days from the date of estimate issue. Even work is yet

not completed for erection of 66 KV line under option III for 2600 KVA

additional demand (CD raise from 1500 KVA on 11 KV to 4100 KVA on 66

KV.)

After completion of 60 days’ notice period to avail power this office has

started the minimum monthly charges without any notice from 26.06.2018

as per applicable contract demand of 4100 KVA.

The Respondent has to follow GERC’s Regulation, so extension of time for

completion of work and to stop applicable monthly charges is not within the

competency of the Respondent.

15. The Respondent submitted the statement narrating the details of the actual

demand drawn from June 2017 to Dec-19 and it show the consumer has

consumed the power up to 2329 KVA in the month of August-19.

i. Billing Demand of 4100 KVA after July 18 charged by the respondent is in

order. Hence, the appellant request to revise the bill as per 1500 KVA

contract demand cannot be acceptable.

ii. From the correspondent made with the consumer/Applicant regarding

GERC’s rules for completion of works within 180 days under option-III

from the payment of estimate. It is clear that the consumer knows all the

rules regarding works. Also, 60 days notices issued to the consumer by the

PGVCL.

Hence, the argument of the Appellant regarding non received 60 days’

notice is meaningless.

16. Failure to avail power supply on 66 KV System by consumer/Appellant

within time frame of GERC’s regulation is not due to “Force Majeure” i.e.,

due to Act of God, War, insurrection, riot, civil commotion, strike,

earthquake, tide, storm, tidal wave, flood, lightning, explosion, fire or any

other natural phenomena which consumer/Appellant could not reasonably

prevent or control.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

17. Right of equality: In each option (i.e., Option I or Option II or Option III) it is

the responsibility of consumer for way leave clearance for line work, crop

compensations, legal issues/statutory permissions shall be arranged by the

consumer at his cost. GETCO will not be responsible for delay, if any, on

this account; Also, during the execution of line, NOC form the land owner

shall be obtained by the consumer also any way leave problem,

compensation, legal dispute, statutory permissions if any, raised from

Government /GIDC, private land owner, farmer, other agency etc., shall

have to be resolved by applicant at his cost.

18. The prayer made by the Appellant as per para 2.11 (a), (b) may not be

consider. The Respondent has always provided co-operation with adequate

guidance/directions to the Appellant. The Respondent requested to dispose

of this case at your level please.

:: Order ::

4.0. I have considered the contentions of the Appellant and the contentions of the

Respondent and the facts, statistics and relevant papers, which are on records,

and considering them in detail, my findings are as under:

4.1. The Appellant has preferred the present representation challenging the order

dated 14.02.2020 Passed by the CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj. Wherein, CGRF, PGVCL,

Bhuj, has rejected the prayer of the Appellant to revise the energy bill as per the

contract demand of 1500 KVA instead of 4100 KVA towards minimum billing

charge from the month of July-2018 till today. The facts leading to the filing of this

appeal submitted by the parties are as under.

a) The Appellant has applied for the 2600 KVA additional load on 20.03.2017

from 1500 KVA to 4100 KVA at 66 KV voltage level.

b) Technical feasibility report for 4100 KVA power supply was carried out by the

Respondent and an estimate for catering for 4100 KVA connection was issued

vide letter dated 10.05.2017. The estimate was paid by the Appellant on

29.06.2017 opting option III. And an agreement was executed on dated

04.07.2017 between the Appellant and the Respondent.

c) The Appellant has opted option III, that is the consumer has to complete the

work and accordingly kick-off meeting was held on dated 01.09.2017 with

GETCO and Appellant for providing guideline and planning for

drawing/approval/vendor approval/inspection requirement etc. In the said

meeting target date of 31.12.2017 was given by GETCO for completion of Line

works.

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

d) Vide letter 11.01.2020 Executive Engineer Construction, GETCO has

intimated the Appellant to expedite the line erection work as per the GERC

norms.

e) Vide letter dated 27.02.2018, Chief Engineer, PGVCL, Rajkot has also

intimated the Appellant to expedite the line erection work for catering 4100

KVA contract demand at 66 KV sub-station under option III. It was further

mentioned in letter that non completion of work may invite appropriate action

as time limit of 180 days is already over.

f) Vide letter dated 11.02.2019 Executive Engineer, Construction, GETCO has

intimated the Appellant that Foundation -21/45, Erection -17/45 and

stringing 00/9.90Km is completed. The work is pending due to ROW issues

and GETCO has applied before the Collector office for the same and it was

directed to the Appellant to take follow-up with the revenue authority and

expedite the pending line work.

g) Vide letter dated 20.08.2019 referring Collector Order in case No. 13/2018

dated 24.07.2019, case No. 17/2018 dated 03/08/2019 and case No.

18/2018 dated 03.08.2019., the Appellant was intimated that line work was

pending due to ROW issues and order passed by Collector are received. Hence,

to expedite the pending line works for releasing additional 2600 KVA power

demand on 66 KV sub-station end.

h) Vide letter dated 17.12.2019, Executive Engineer Construction, GETCO

intimated the Appellant that the work was pending due to ROW issues and

order passed by the Collector are received and accordingly police protection

order was received and necessary charges were paid, but no line work progress

is found. Hence, the Appellant is instructed to expedite the work of erection of

line for releasing additional 2600 power demand on 66 KV sub-station end.

i) The matter of ROW issues put up before the Hon’ble Collector and District

Magistrate Bhuj, by GECTO vide letter No.17-18/division/Anjar/Project/5106

dated 27.12.2017 and by the Appellant vide letter dated 02.02.2018. Vide

letter dated 19.07.2018 and 25.10.2018 reminder was made before the

Hon’ble Collector and District Magistrate for the above appeal.

j) Vide letter No. 3282 dated 26.04.2018, release order issued by the

Respondent, PGVCL. The said release order was not received by the Appellant

as said by the Appellant.

k) Vide letter No. 4838 dated 25.06.2018, the Respondent issue the letter

mentioning deemed release of 2600 additional load to the Appellant and to

start billing as per the contract demand of 4100 KVA. The Respondent started

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

the minimum billing as per the contract demand of 4100 KVA with effect from

July- 2018.

l) Vide letter date 24.07.2019 and 03.08.2019, order has been passed by the

Hon’ble Collector and District Magistrate, Bhuj, to carry out the line erection

work with the police protection and compensation to be given as per the

government rules to the land owners. Accordingly, for availing police

protection necessary fees was paid on 30.09.2019.

m) Vide letter dated 01.09.2019, the Appellant has filed grievance before the

CGRF, PGVCL, Bhuj.

n) As on today as per the submission made by the Parties, approved 66 kV line

works are not completed for availing additional load of 2600 KVA totalling to

4100 KVA contract demand of Appellant from 66 KV sub-station.

4.2. The Appellant has opted option III and paid an estimate amount on initial stage on

dated 29.06.2017. Additional Chief Engineer, GETCO vide letter dated 05.01.2018

addressed to the Appellant intimated the works to be carried out as per the kick-

off meeting held on 01.09.2017 and Line works to be completed prior to date

31.12.2017. It was further mentioned that the Appellant has opt option III, hence

the Appellant has to complete the line works within 180 days as per the GERC

norms. The estimate is subject to general terms and condition applicable to work

appended as per Annexure (1). General terms and condition for deposit that is

Annexure (1)

I. The estimate to be paid either as per the option-I, option-II, option-III within

one month from the date of issue of the estimate to the consumer.

II. In case the Applicant preferred to undertake the work as per the Option II

and option III of the estimate. He should comply with the following

additional requirement:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii. If the consumer opts for option to carry out the work on its own he

will have to execute the following agreement and shall be carried out

by them on Rs. One Hundred Non-Judicial Stamp Paper at the office

of Superintending Engineer (Transmission Circle) GETCO, Anjar, the

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

GETCO corporate office, Vadodara, the connection should be

released.

4.3. In the estimate issue dated 10.05.2017, it was mentioned that during the

execution of line, NOC from the land owners shall be obtain by the Applicant also

any following problems like crop compensations, legal dispute, statutory

permission if any raised from the Government/GIDC/appropriate land

owners/farmers other agency shall have to be resolved by the Applicant at his own

cost.

4.4. Vide letter dated 27.02.2018 the Respondent has intimated the Appellant to

expedite the works for catering 2600KVA additional Load as Appellant has opted

option III that is work to be carried out by the Appellant. After the payment of the

estimate amount on 29.06.2017 works completion target was given to 31.12.2017.

In compliance of the same the Appellant has intimated that erection of line work

was held up due to ROW clearance. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.04.2018 the

Respondent has issued a notice to the Appellant to complete the line work and to

avail the power supply within 60 days from the date of issue of notice as per the

clause No. 4.33 (2) of the GERC, (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters)

Regulations, 2015. The content of the Provision of Clause No. 4.33 (2) reads as

under:

(2) Charges for the above-mentioned works to be paid by the applicant in

accordance with GERC (Licensees Power to Recover Expenditure incurred in

providing supply and Other Miscellaneous Charges) Regulations 2005 and

amendments thereof. Provided that if the applicant wishes to carry out the

works himself, he shall be permitted to do so under supervision by the

licensee’s officer. Adhering to the estimate and layout approved by the

licensee, the applicant can get the work of drawing of service line from the

licensee’s distribution mains up to his premises extension of HT/EHT line,

Distribution or HT substation and LT line through Licensed Electrical

Contractor (LEC). In such case, the consumer himself shall procure the

materials. The material should conform to relevant BIS specifications or its

equivalent and should bear the ISI mark wherever applicable. The licensee

may ask for documentary evidence to verify the quality of materials used.

Provided further that if the applicant chooses to get the extension work done

on his/her own, only supervision charges on the cost of material and labor

charges shall be payable to the licensee. Provided further that if the applicant

chooses to get the extension work done on his own, he shall get the work

done within the timeframe specified in GERC (Standard of Performance of

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

Distribution Licensee) Regulations, 2005, as amended from time to time,

failing which the licensee shall issue notice to complete work and avail power

supply within 60 days from such notice, on completion of notice period, he

shall be liable to pay demand charges and minimum monthly charges as

applicable.

4.5. The Standard of performance of distribution licensee states of time period for

providing electric connection. The Relevant provision 9 (3) is as under:

9.3 Bulk Power connections are to be released, in time bound manner as detailed

below:

Sl. No. ITEM/ACTITIVITY TIME LIMIT (Within)

1 Loads up to 100 kVA /100 kW

Issue of Demand Notice Within 10 days of receipt

of application.

Release of connection Within 20 days after

compliance of formalities/

demand notice, if no

augmentation is required

otherwise 60 days.

2 Loads above 100 kVA/100 kW and up to 4000 kVA for

TPAL, loads above 100 kVA and upto 2500 kVA for TPSL

and GEB

Issue of feasibility

clearance

Within 7 days of receipt of

application.

Issue of Demand notice

Within

15 days of receipt of

application.

Release of connection Within 45 days after

compliance of Demand

Notice/formalities by

prospective consumers.

3 Loads above 2500 kVA for GEB and TPSL and load

above 4000 kVA for TPAL

Issue of feasibility

clearance

Within 15 days of receipt

of application.

Issue of Demand notice

Within

30 days of receipt of

application.

Release of connection. Within 180 days after

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

completion of Demand

notice/formalities by

prospective consumers.

Looking to the above provision stipulated time Period releasing additional load

demand of 2600 KVA, total of 4100 KVA contract demand of appellant is 180 days

after the completion of formalities that is payment of demand notice.

4.6. In this case demand notice was paid on 29.06.2017 and considering the stipulated

time period of 180 days’ connection was to be released before the 28.12.2017.

While in this case Respondent has issued notice to the Appellant on 26.04.2018

mentioning the clause no. 4.33 of GERC, Electricity Supply Code and Related

Matters) Regulations, 2015 to avail the power supply within the period of 60 days

from the date of notice that is 26.04.2018. Thereafter, the Respondent started

minimum billing with effect from July 2018.

4.7. By way of option III, this work to be carried out by the Appellant. The Appellant is

bound to complete the line work within specified time period within 180 days in

EHT connection as per the Provision of SOP regulations, 2005 as well as

Electricity Supply Code Related Matters, Regulations, 2015.

4.8. As per the Appellants submission that GETCO compelled him to opt option-III i.e.

works carried out by the Appellant. On said arguments no documentary evidence

produced by the Appellant. As said by Appellant mentioning break-up of works

under option-I, option-II, & option –III, no such written documentary evidence or

guidelines published by GETCO are put up before the ombudsman. The said

arguments are without any supporting documents. Hence, without any

documentary evidences, said arguments are not accepted. It is the Appellant who

had opted option-III for the Application for additional load of 2600 KVA totalling of

4100 KVA contract demand under 66 KV substation.

4.9. Co-joint reading of Clause 4.33 (2) of supply code-2015 with clause 9.3 (2) of SOP

Regulations, 2005, wherein 180 days’ time period reckoned in the case of

appellant for additional load application of 2600 KVA under 66 KV supply.

Clause 9.3- Note reads as under:

Note: The time mentioned in the schedule would be reckoned after presentation of

completed application and compliance with formalities (including granting of space

for installation of transformers, if required, and meters) is completed. The above time

limit for release of connection after receipt of demand note amount will be subject to

the condition that connection is technically feasible and will meet with safety

requirements. This duration would exclude the time attributable to the consumer /

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

local authority. Further, any such extended period should also be conveyed to the

Commission for its record.

It is within that this duration would exclude the time attributable to the

consumer/local authority. Further any such extended period should also be

conveyed to the commission for its record.

In case of Appellant during execution of electric line works at the Village

Khokhara, Raipur, Chandrani, objections were raised by the land owners. GETCO

had filed a case before the Collector/District Magistrate, Bhuj, appeal Case No.

13/2018, Case No. 17/2018 and case no. 18/2018, since then erection of line

works held up. It is also believed that if GETCO had undertaken a said works

under Option-I said objections of lines by land owners would have also required to

face by the GETCO authority as line erections dispute developed here in this case

& ultimately by way of intervene of GETCO had filed a grievance before

Collector/District Magistrate Bhuj, being a supervising authority for line erection

works of the Appellant. The Said disputes were decided by the Collector/District

Magistrate Bhuj, order dated 02.02.2018 & 19.07.2018, 25.10.2018. In view of

that time period of 27.12.2017 to 25.10.2018 was covered under dispute redressal

mechanism, as far as to get directives/order from the Competent Authority. Still

disputed works are not completed as per the directives/orders passed by the

Competent authority to avail police protection & execution of erection of line.

In the said time period, Appellant was not in a position to execute the line erection

works. As said by the Appellant that 50% of work of erection of towers were

completed but rest of the line towers works, objection of land owners against the

erection works was developed, which shows that Appellant had undergone a works

of erection of line/towers works as per the approved plan and tried their level to

complete the approved works. It is on records that the line works at sub-station

end as well as Appellant’s end are completed. Only in the line erection/towers

works land owner’s objections/dispute came in the way of process of carrying out

electric line erection works. This dispute is not in control of Appellant/GETCO or

Respondent. This type of act which would happen in future & in such type of

event, it becomes impossible to solve within specified time period when

particularly dispute filed before the Competent authority and decisions/orders are

pending. If GETCO/Respondent would have involved in carrying out the said

work, they may have chance to face such type of dispute in this case and time

period to 180 days for Completion of line works would be overruled by them.

Line/tower erections, objections were developed & that was intimated to the

GETCO by the Appellant & ultimately grievance was filed before the Appellate

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

Authority i.e., Collector/ District Magistrate Bhuj, on 27.12.2017 in case No.

13/2018. Case no.17/2018 & case no.18/2018.

The said line erections dispute is still not redressed & line works is not completed.

In view of the clause 9.3 of SOP Regulations, 2005. The said dispute mechanism

time attribution would be excluded in terms of time period of completion of works.

Respondent/GETCO have to provide a co-operation/guidance to the Appellant in

execution of line works of the Appellant under the Option III.

4.10. The Respondent stated that the Appellant had drawn excess demand against its

contract demand of 1500 KVA, in the existing 11 KV system. As per the

submission made in para no.3.8 by the Respondent, and on view of the records of

contract demand w.e.f. May-2019, the Appellant had recorded Maximum demand

above the 1500 KVA contract demand till December-2019 under deemed released

status with 4100KVA contract demand.

4.11. The liability for redressing any issues in relation to erection of line or way leave

permission parted with Appellant under Option-III. Here the issue of line works

and objections arose prior to receiving minimum billing under deemed release of

EHT connection. The Appellant had asked time limit extension for completion of

electric line work but that was not approved by the Respondent. Thus, looking to

said grounds it is believed that the Appellant had tried for granting the additional

time for the completion of line works. It proves the intention of the appellant to

avail additional load and to opt 66KV Supply.

4.12. On the part of right to equality issue, the Appellant submitted that no equal

treatment has been given by the Respondent. 66KV sub-station at Navagaon was

completed in more than 900 days due to ROW problems in the same jurisdiction

i.e., at Anjar. The Respondent was unable to answer the question raised for giving

equal treatment as far as time period of 180 days for completion of line work is

concerned. The Appellant/DISCOM cannot be made responsible for the delay if

any in giving supply on account of problems relating to statutory clearance, right

of way and acquisition of land which is beyond the reasonable control of the

Appellant/DISCOM, as far as commissioning of electric network for providing

power supply is concerned.

4.13. In the Circumstances observed above, line erection works are not completed by

the Appellant under the objections received by the land owners & related disputes

were filed before the Competent Authority i.e., Collector/ District Magistrate, Bhuj

& in said dispute order/directives were passed by the Collector/District Magistrate

on 03.08.2019. The said works are not completed. In this circumstance time

Case No. 24/2020

of 27

period attributed towards dispute redressal mechanism against objection raised

by the Land owners needs to excluded from the Specified time period.

4.14. Respondent should have to billed as per the contract demand of 1500 KVA till the

time of directives/orders passed by the Competent authority against the objection

raised by the land owners as far as Line erections dispute involved under option

III, i.e., works to be carried out by the Appellant.

4.15. On other hand, Appellant has to carry out the remaining line works as per

directives/order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bhuj within specified

time frame of 180 days. Completion of specified time period of 180 days on

payment of estimate excluding time attributed towards legal dispute mechanism.

Respondent should have to issue 60 days’ notice to the Appellant as per the

provision of Supply Code 2015 and should see that notice delivered to Appellant

as per the provision of Electricity Act, 2003. thereafter billing should be started

with 4100 KVA contract demand of Appellant.

4.16. I order accordingly.

4.17. No order as to costs.

4.18. With this order, representation/Application stands disposed of.

S/d.

(D R Parmar) Electricity Ombudsman

Gujarat State. Ahmedabad. Date: 15.03.2021.

Case no.24:2020 judgement FINAL - Gujarat Electricity ...

Documents

Transcript of Case no.24:2020 judgement FINAL - Gujarat Electricity ...