CASE No. 103 of CASE No. 104 of 2016

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: CASE No. 103 of 2016 In the matter of Petition of Lupin Limited ( Research Park) regarding non-compliance of CGRF, Pune Zone s Order dated in Case No. 12/2016 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and CASE No. 104 of 2016 In the matter of Petition of Lupin Limited (Biotech Division) regarding non-compliance of CGRF, Pune Zone s Order dated in Case No. 15/2016 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Coram Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member M/s. Lupin Limited.... Petitioner V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Respondent Appearance For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Authorized Consumer Representative: Shri. Ajit Deshpande (Rep) Shri. Ashish Singh (Advocate) Dr. Ashok Pendse, TBIA Order in Case No. 103 and 104 of 2016 Page 1 of 5

2 ORDER Dated: 2 February, 2017 M/s. Lupin Limited ( Lupin ), Pune has filed two Petitions on 26 July, 2016, citing Sections 62(6), 142, 146 and 149 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003, seeking action against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) for non-compliance of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), Pune Zone s Order dated 22 June, 2016 in Case No. 12/2016 and Order dated 20 June, 2016 in Case No. 15/ 2016, as follows: Case No. Petitioner Location Date of Petition 103 of 2016 M/s. Lupin Limited (Research Park) 104 of 2016 M/s. Lupin Limited (Biotech Division) Gat No. 46 A/47 A, At Nande, Tal. Mulshi, Distt. Pune Gat No. 1156, Village Ghotawade, Tal. Mulshi, Distt. Pune, CGRF Order No. and date 26 July, 2016 Case No. 12 /2016 dated July, 2016 Case No. 15 /2016 dated The Petition in Case No. 103 of 2016 has the following prayers: 1) To direct MSEDCL to comply the Order passed by Hon. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pune Zone in our complaint No. 12/2016 dated immediately and refund us the unlawfully collected amount of Rs.11,99,73,380/- along with interest equivalent to bank rate vide Section 62 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as per the CGRF Order. 2) To initiate action against guilty officers of MSEDCL, under Section 142 Section 146 and Section 149 of the Electricity Act, ) To direct MSEDCL to compensate the Petitioner by Rs. One Lakh recovered, by way of penalty under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, ) To direct MSEDCL to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards the cost of this Petition. 5) Petitioner prays Hon. Commission to give any other directives, which Hon. Commission may deem fit, to meet the justice in favour of the Petitioner. The prayers in the Petition in Case No. 104 of 2016 are similar, the only substantive difference being the reference to the relevant Order of the CGRF and the amount of refund. The Commission has clubbed both Cases as the issues are similar and the Parties are the same. 3. The common facts as stated in the Petitions are as below: 3.1. Lupin (Research Park and Biotech Divisions) are HT Industrial Consumers of MSEDCL. The applicable Tariff Category is HT-I Industrial Tariff. Order in Case No. 103 and 104 of 2016 Page 2 of 5

3 3.2. Lupin is engaged in in-house research and development activities for its own industry. It was billed under the HT-I Industrial tariff category till May, Vide its letter dated 7 July, 2015, MSEDCL informed that, based on its Executive Engineer s spot inspection Reports, only Research and Development activity was being carried out at these Units of Lupin and hence the applicable Tariff is HT-II - Commercial. MSEDCL unilaterally changed Lupin s Tariff category from HT-I Industrial to HT-II Commercial Thereafter, MSEDCL issued a supplementary bill of Rs. 11,99,73,380 against the Tariff differential for the past period of 34 months of August, 2012 to May, 2015 retrospectively for the Research Park Unit, and a supplementary bill of Rs. 6, 86, 61, 400 against the Tariff differential for the past period of 34 months of August, 2012 to May, 2015 retrospectively for the Biotech Division MSEDCL served a disconnection notice on Lupin on 6 November, 2015 for nonpayment of the arrears which were raised retrospectively for the past period Vide letter dated 7 December, 2015, Lupin requested the Chief Engineer (CE), Commercial, MSEDCL to look into the matter of retrospective recovery, and sought waiver of the amount No reply was given to Lupin s letter, but MSEDCL disconnected the power supply of Lupin (Research Park) on 10 December, 2015, and of the Lupin (Biotech Division) on 11 December, Since its pharmaceutical processes are important, Lupin unwillingly requested MSEDCL to allow payment in six installments. Lupin paid the first installments under protest on 11 December, 2015, whereupon MSEDCL restored the power supply Aggrieved by the action of MSEDCL, Lupin filed its grievances before the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC). Since the IGRC rejected its claims, Lupin approached the CGRF, Pune Zone on 28 April and 18 February, 2016 for its the Research Park and Biotech Division Units, respectively In its Order dated 22 June, 2016 in Case No. 12/2016 with regard to the Research Park, the CGRF held as follows: Order in Case No. 103 and 104 of 2016 Page 3 of 5

4 1. Grievance of the consumer stands allowed with cost. 2. The supplementary bill of tariff differentiation amount issued by the Licensee dated for Rs.11, 99, 73, 380/- for past period of Aug to May-2015 is hereby set aside. 3. Impugned order dated passed by IGRC (PRC) Pune is hereby set aside. 4. The Licensee is directed to refund the tariff differentiation amount of Rs.11, 99, 73, 380/- along with interest equivalent to the bank rate vide section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, The Licensee to report compliance within one month from the receipt of this order In its Order dated 20 June, 2016 in Case No. 15/2016 relating to the Biotech Division, the CGRF held as follows: 1. Grievance of the consumer stands allowed with cost. 2. The supplementary bill of tariff differentiation amount issued by the Licensee dated for Rs.6,86,61,400/- for past period of Aug to May-2015 is hereby set aside. 3. Impugned order dated passed by IGRC (PRC) Pune is hereby set aside. 4. The Licensee is directed to refund the tariff differentiation amount of Rs.6,86,61,400/- along with interest equivalent to the bank rate vide section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, The Licensee to report compliance within one month from the receipt of this order However, neither CGRF Order has been complied with by MSEDCL. Hence, Lupin has filed these Petitions seeking action under Sections 62(6), 142, 146 and 149 of the EA, In its Reply dated 31 August, 2016, MSEDCL stated that it has filed Writ Petitions (WP) No / 2016 and 9530 / 2016 before the Bombay High Court challenging both the Orders of the CGRF, Pune. Hence, no action under Section 142 may be taken at this stage by the Commission. 5. At the hearing on 24 November, 2016, Lupin re-iterated the submissions made in its Petitions, and sought action against MSEDCL for non-compliance of the CGRF Orders. MSEDCL stated that it had filed WP Nos. 9529/ 2016 and 9530/ 2016 before the Bombay Order in Case No. 103 and 104 of 2016 Page 4 of 5

5 High Court challenging both CGRF Orders. The matters are listed for hearing today. To a query of the Commission, MSEDCL stated that no stay has been granted by the High Court on the CGRF Orders. 6. On the same day, MSEDCL submitted a letter dated 24 November, 2016 stating that, following the hearing before the Commission, WP Nos and 9530 of 2016 challenging the CGRF Orders were heard by the Bombay High Court. The High Court has passed the following Order: No coercive steps to be taken against the Petitioners/ employees in view of the impugned orders subject to deposit of the impugned amount in the Court on or before In view of the above Order, MSEDCL sought that no action be taken against it under Section 142 of the EA, By dated 18 January, 2016, MSEDCL also submitted copies of the Daily Orders passed by the Bombay High Court on 24 November and 23 December, 2016 wherein the ad-interim relief granted to MSEDCL has been continued. Commission s Analysis and Ruling 8. In view of the stay of the CGRF Orders granted by the Bombay High Court, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with these proceedings. Therefore, the Commission disposes of the present Petitions, with liberty to Lupin to approach the Commission afresh if it so desires depending on the outcome of the Writ Petitions before the High Court. The Petitions of M/s. Lupin Limited in Case Nos. 103 and 104 of 2016 stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member Order in Case No. 103 and 104 of 2016 Page 5 of 5