M/s. Ramdev Chemical Industries, Plot No. 3441/B, GIDC Ind.Estate ANKLESHWAR Dist. Bharuch. Represented by: Shri J.N.Gandhi, Learned Advocate

Transcription

1 GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, GUJARAT STATE Polytechnic Compound, Barrack No.3, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad CASE NO. 72/2017 Appellant: M/s. Ramdev Chemical Industries, Plot No. 3441/B, GIDC Ind.Estate ANKLESHWAR Dist. Bharuch. Represented by: Shri J.N.Gandhi, Learned Advocate V/s. Respondent: Executive Engineer, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited Industrial Division Office, ANKLESHWAR. Dist.Bharuch. Represented by: Shri J.S.Kedaria, EE, DGVCL, Ankleshwar Ind.Dn. :::PROCEEDINGS::: 1.0. The Appellant had submitted representation aggrieving with the order 5498 dated passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Surat, in case No.35/ The representation was registered at this office as Case No.72/2017. The hearing was kept on Appellant has represented the case as under It is stated that initially two HT connections were given by Respondent (1) Ramdev Chemicals Ind., HT of 475 KVA at Plot No.3441/B and (2) Savani Chemicals, HT of 1800 KVA at Plot No.3441/A at GIDC Ankleshwar. Thereafter Ramdev Chemicals Ind., purchase at plot No. 3441/A and applied for change of name before Respondent and after verifying the documents change of name of effected. Therefore, Both HT connections were in Page 1 of 13

2 the name of Ramdev Chemical Industry in different plots before Respondent had carried out checking on and checking officer came to the conclusion that both HT connections are on the same name located in the different plot separated by wall and made remark in the checking sheet that action will be taken for merging both HT connections as per rules and abide by the consumer. But no instructions were passed to issue supplementary bill by checking officer to field officer On the basis of checking sheet, Respondent had issued notice on and , which was replied by appellant vide letter dated and submitted supporting documents for both the HT connections. Appellant has request to continue HT connections at different locations It is submitted that without giving any opportunity for calling for hearing, Respondent has issued supplementary bill of Rs.23,10, for the period October,2015 to April,2017 vide letter No dated The amount of supplementary bill is paid under protest on Aggrieving with the supplementary bill, Appellant had filed grievance before CGRF, and aggrieved by the order issued by CGRF dated , Appellant has filed the representation before Ombudsman for justice Appellant has submitted following ground: (1) Regulation 4.28 of Supply Code 2015 came into existence on which states that not to provide more than one connection in one premises or adjoining/contiguous premise belonging to the same owner if these are not separated by a public road or by private premises. So on receipt of new Supply Code 2015, it is a duty of Respondent to verify all such connections in their area of supply and issue notice to Page 2 of 13

3 consumers and called upon for submission of documents and called for personal hearing and if required to issue notice for merging of connections for regularize the same and issue prospective bills thereafter, but in no case retrospective bills are to be served. (2) As per checking on no instructions were passed on to the field officer for issue of supplementary bill with retrospective effect. (3) It is stated that before issuing the notice dated , Respondent has never issued any such notice for merger of HT connections so the effective date of merger is and thereafter. But in no case supplementary bill recovery retrospectively and no such provision is there to issue the bill retrospectively. It is not a fault on Appellant s end, when the connections were given legally by Respondent. (4) It is submitted that when the agreement was already entered into between the Appellant and Respondent, the rate would stand governed accordingly, and based on the costing structure the cost of electricity may be passed over to the public at large who is to make use of the product or premises, as the case may be. Hence the unilateral action on the part of Respondent is not permissible and in any case such action could not be undertaken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. (5) It is submitted that till the old agreements are continued but the tariff rates are revised without making new agreement by Respondent. (6) Forum has not gone through the submission made by Appellant and relied upon only revised regulation 4.28 of Supply Code 2005 in which there is no provision to issue supplementary bill retrospectively. Page 3 of 13

4 (7) It is submitted that in support to present issue, Appellant has quoted judgement of Hon ble High Court in LPA No. 261 to 278 of 2005 in which it is ordered that in no case supplementary bill can be issued with retrospective effect that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the consumer Appellant has prayed as under: (1) The order issued by CGRF may be quashed and set aside. (2) Respondent may be directed to quash the supplementary bill of Rs. 23,10, issued with retrospective effect and to refund the same in next monthly energy bill Respondent has represented the case as under It is submitted that the connections were checked by Vigilance Squad on vide Checking Sheet No and 1547 in presence of representative of appellant. Details of HT connections of Appellant are as under: Sr. Particulars HT Conn. No.1 HT Conn.No.2. No. 1 Name of consumer M/s. Ramdev Chemical Ind. M/s. Ramdev Chemical Ind. 2 Consumer No Contract Demand 1800KVA 275KVA 4 Plot No. 3441/A 3441/B 5 Release date of conn GIDC Allotment letter GIDC/DM(CG)/ GIDC/DM(CG)/ ANK/977 dated ANK/976 dated PAN No. AACFR3839A AACFR3839A 8 Sale Tax No. NIL NIL 9 Type of industry Chemical Chemical 3.2. During checking it was observed that 2 No. of HT connections in the same name i.e. M/s. Ramdev Chemicals existing in adjoining plot No. 3441/A and 3441/B at GIDC, Ankleshwar On , Respondent has issued notice for merger of both HT connections as per Clause No of Supply Code,2015. Page 4 of 13

5 3.4. As per the Electricity Act 2003, Respondent has submitted various definition as under: (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) "consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be; A consumer is specified as a: Low Tension Consumer (LT consumer) if he obtains supply from the licensee at low or medium voltage. High Tension Consumer (HT consumer) if he obtains supply from the licensee at High voltage; Extra High Tension Consumer (EHT consumer) if he obtains supply from the licensee at Extra High Voltage. Person refers to any individual or company or body corporate or association or body of individual whether incorporated or not or artificial juridical person. (c) Premises refers to Land, building or infrastructure or part of combination thereof in Respondent has referred Clause No of Supply Code It is stated that Supply Code came into force on the date of publication in the official gazette of GoG on It is clearly mentioned in above Clause that Income Tax/Sale Tax number, Ration Card and Rent or Lease agreement are to be different for considering separate connection As per Clause No of Supply Code 2015, Respondent has issued notice to Appellant on to prove separate legal entity. Appellant has complied on and submitted GPCB certificate, lease deed, water supply bill, but not submitted separate PAN Card and Sale Tax number for both the connections. It proves that both connections are on the same name with adjoining Page 5 of 13

6 premises. So Respondent has again issue notice on to prove separate legal entity It is submitted that Appellant is having two separate meters in adjoining area. Therefore, Demand charges are calculated separately for separate contracted load and separate unit consumption are billed separately. Thus splitting up of both demand and energy charges under lower slab of tariff, resulting in to revenue loss to Respondent, which affects to functioning of Respondent. Respondent has calculated sample calculation of revenue loss as per tariff and submitted as under: Sr. No. Name of consumer Consumer No. Metering parameter Contract Actual Demand Demand in KVA in KVA Unit of energy consumer (KWH 1 Ramdev Chem. Ind Ramdev Chem. Ind Total Formula for calculation of energy bill. (A) With individual metering: (1) Demand Charge Calculation: Consumer No. Actual BMD in KVA Rate per KVA Amount.(Rs.) demand KVA Consumer No. Actual demand. BMD in KVA Rate per KVA Amount.(Rs.) KVA Total Demand Charges: Rs = Rs (2) Energy charge calculation: Consumer No. KWH Drawl Rate per KWH Amount (Rs.) Page 6 of 13

7 Total energy charges: Rs = Rs (3) Time of use Charge Calculation: Consumer No. KWH Drawl Rate per KWH Amount (Rs.) Total TOU charges: Rs = Rs (B) With Single Meter (after merging): (1) Demand Charge Calculation: Consumer No & Actual Demand BMD in KVA Rate per KVA Amount(Rs.) KVA (2) Energy Charge calculation: Consumer No. KWH Drawl Rate per KVA Amount(Rs.) & (2) Time of Use Charge calculation: Consumer No. TOU KWH Drawl Rate per KVA Amount(Rs.) & Grand total of energy bill: Demand charge+energy charge+tou charge. = Rs Rs Rs = Rs Revenue loss on account of: (a) Demand charges: Rs = Rs (b) Energy charges: Rs = Rs (c) TOU charges: Rs = Rs (d) Electricity 15% on consumption charge: Rs Electricity Duty Amount: Rs Total loss of Rs Page 7 of 13

8 3.8. Based on the letters No. MD/29 dated and No. BRHC/DGVCL/CO/2508 Respondent has issued supplementary bill of Rs. 23,10,969/- on , which was paid by Appellant on with objection It is submitted that as per Clause No of Supply Code Notification No.4 of 2015, if it is found that a consumer has been classified in a particular category erroneously or any order of reduction or enhancement of contract demand has been obtained, the Dist. Licensee may reclassify him under appropriate category after issuing notice It is submitted that as per Clause No of Supply Code Notification No.4 of 2015, Distribution Licensee may classify and reclassified consumers in to various tariff category from time to time as may be approved by GERC Respondent has referred such type of connections checked on of M/s. J.B.Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Consumer No , 39255, for which merger notice as well as supplementary bills were issued and above consumers has paid the bill and applied for merger of connections Respondent has referred the Hon ble High of Gujarat, SCA No.15262/2012 and LPA No. 1069/2013, Petition filed by M/s. Modern Denim V/s UGVCL to seek the set aside the supplementary bill issued under Clause No of Supply Code Notification No.5, which was rejected by Hon ble Court Respondent has referred the Ombudsman Case No.70/2015 of M/s. Bhavnagar Salt V/s PGVCL, Bhavnagar and Ombudsman Case No. 103/2015 of M/s. Acrysil Limited v/s. PGVCL, Bhavnagar, being a similar nature of issue Looking to the above, Respondent has submitted that the Appeal of Appellant may be rejected and action taken by Respondent may be granted. Page 8 of 13

9 ::: ORDER ::: 4.0. I have considered the contentions of the Appellant and the Respondent and the facts, statistics and relevant papers, which are on record, and considering them in detail, my findings are as under As per the details of connections submitted by Respondent, following both the HT connections were released on the name of Appellant, M/s. Ramdev Chemical Industries. (1) Connection No.HT was released in at Plot No.3441/A, GIDC, Ankleshwar in the name of M/s. Savani Chemicals, and thereafter name transfer in the name of Appellant, having contracted demand of 1800KVA. (2) Connection No. HT was released on at Plot No.3441/B, GIDC, Ankleshwar, having contracted demand of 275KVA. Supply Code & related Matters Regulations, Notification No.11 of 2005, which was published on in gazette of GoG, which was in existence while releasing both the HT connections of Appellant Supply Code Regulation Notification No.11 of 2005 Section , which speaks about procedure for grant of supply. Section reads as under: The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection/ meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No. ration card and rent or lease agreement. Respondent might have observed the provisions of Section-4 of Notification 2005 while processing the application of Appellant and released 2 No. of HT connections at relevant point of time. Page 9 of 13

10 4.3. While dealing the grievance, CGRF has observed as under. - Installation checking was carried out by Vigilance Squad and raised point in checking sheet that both HT connections are adjacent to each other and separated by compound wall. - Appellant has submitted documentary evidences of both HT connections. Appellant has produced same PAN number for deposition of interest on security deposit. For both the HT connections, Appellant has stated same Sales Tax Number. - GERC Supply Code & Related Matters Regulation, Notification No. 4/2015, Clause 4.28 read as under: The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection for one premise or in adjoining/contiguous premises belonging to same owner if these are not separated by a public road or by private premise. The consumers opting for second connection will have to produce separate legal entity documents such as separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No., ration card and rent or lease agreement. This Code came into force on publication of gazette of GoG from Therefore, it is clear from above, that Income Tax No./Sales Tax No./Ration Card and Rent of lease agreement are to be different for considering separate connections. - Even though both the HT connections are having used for production of different product and having different GPCB permission, PAN Number and Sales Tax Number are same for both HT connections of Appellant. Hence looking to the Notification of Supply Code, Clause 4.28, both the connections are to be merged. - New Supply Code Regulation published w.e.f Accordingly, demand charge and energy charge etc., are to be calculated as per the respective tariff order published by GERC. The supplementary bill amounting to Rs.23,10, issued to Appellant is in order. Page 10 of 13

11 4.4. During hearing, Respondent has confirmed that Appellant is having 2 No. of HT connections as per Para 3.1. Both premises Plot No. 3441/A and Plot No. 3441/B, GIDC, are adjacent to each other and separated by compound wall i.e. clear demarcation of power boundary. Appellant has produced one PAN number and Sales Tax number for both the HT connections. Respondent has issued notice to merge above 2 No. of HT connections The action of release of consumer s connection is governed by Electricity Supply Code and Relevant Matters Regulations, 2005 notified by GERC prior to publication of new Supply Code Regulation No.4 of 2015, w.e.f Therefore, the interpretation of Clause , which involved in the present issue. GERC is the authority to interpret as per the Clause No. 2.2 of Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters Regulations Notification 11 of Similar issue arose in the case of M/s. Modern Denim Ltd. V/s. UGVCL in which M/s. Modern Denim Ltd. approached to Hon ble High Court of Gujarat by filling SCA No of Hon ble High Court passed order on dt in the said SCA holding that the merger of connection done by UGVCL is legal and valid. The said order challenged by M/s. Modern Denim Ltd. before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat who has passed an order dt in LPA No.1069/2013 and upheld the decision of SCA No.15262/2012. Further, in similar matter, disconnection notice is challenged by M/s. Aarvee Denim V/s. UGVCL in LPA No of 2013 in SCA No. 464 of 2013 before Hon ble High Court of Gujarat, which is pending before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. The similar issue is involved in the present representation and same is sub judice before Hon ble High Court of Gujarat. Page 11 of 13

12 4.7. In aforesaid circumstances, the interpretation of Clause No of Notification No.11 of 2005 is sub judice in other case similar to the present grievance matter. In present case both HT connections were released after publication of Supply Code Regulations,2005. GERC has published Supply Code Regulations No.4 of 2015 w.e.f Respondent has taken action as per Clause No.4.28 of Supply Code Regulations,2015 and issued merger notice to Appellant. Clause No of Supply Code Notification No.4 of 2015 reads as under: The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection for one premise or in adjoining/contiguous premises belonging to same owner if these are not separated by a public road or by private premise. The consumers opting for second connection will have to produce separate legal entity documents such as separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No., ration card and rent or lease agreement. Clause No of Supply Code Notification No. 11/2005 reads as under: The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection/ meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No. ration card and rent or lease agreement. The primary issue emerge in present case is applicability of Clause No.4.28 of Supply Code,2015 and interpretation of the same Clause. This issue to be decided in light of interpretation of the Clause No pending before Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in other similar type of case. The issue of supplementary bill under merger of two connections, needs to be decided after interpretation of Clause No of Notification No.4/2015 and Clause No of Notification No. 11 of Page 12 of 13

13 Hence without going to the part of interpretation of these Clauses by Judicial authority, it would not be proper to decide the case on above grounds. Looking to above observations, representation is not maintainable I order accordingly No order as to costs With this order, representation/application stands disposed of. Ahmedabad. Date: (Dilip Raval) Electricity Ombudsman Gujarat State Page 13 of 13