Case No. 24/2020
Page 1 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
Page 2 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
Page 3 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
Page 4 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
Page 5 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
Page 6 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
Page 7 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
Page 8 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
Page 9 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
Page 10 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
Page 11 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
Page 12 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
Page 13 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
Page 14 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
Page 15 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
Page 16 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
Page 17 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
Page 18 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
Page 19 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
Page 20 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
Page 21 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
Page 22 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
Page 23 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
Page 24 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
Page 25 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
Page 26 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
Page 27 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.