BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN. Sixth day of October Two Thousand Eight. Present: R. Balasubramanian, Electricity Ombudsman

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN. Sixth day of October Two Thousand Eight. Present: R. Balasubramanian, Electricity Ombudsman"

Melvin Gilmore
5 years ago
Views:

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN No. 17, Third Main Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Phone : ++91-044-2435 9156 / 2435 9215 / 2432 2037 Fax : ++91-044-2435 4982 Email : tnerc@vsnl.

1 TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN No. 17, Third Main Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai Phone : / / Fax : tnerc@vsnl.net Web site : www. tneo.gov.in BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN Sixth day of October Two Thousand Eight Present: R. Balasubramanian, Electricity Ombudsman Petition No. 12 of 2008 M/s A.S. Shipping Agencies (P) Ltd, Shipping Agents & Chartering Brokers, New No.113, Old No.55, Armenian Street, Chennai Petitioner Vs The Chairperson (Superintending Engineer), Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Anna Nagar, Chennai Respondent The above appeal petition arises out of the order dated passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle /West, which rejected the appellant s request for extension of the existing HT supply from the appellant s service connection No at Noombal Village, Chennai-77 to the adjacent premises of the appellant. 1

2 The appeal coming up for final orders before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, upon perusing the counter affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the relevant records pertaining to the case and having stood over for the consideration before the Ombudsman till this day, the Ombudsman passes the following order: 1. Prayer of the appellant The appellant company has prayed the Ombudsman to issue directions to the respondents for extension of supply from the existing 11 KV HT service connection to its adjacent premises by crossing a public road. 2. Case in brief : The appellant company herein is having a HT Service connection No in SF No. 118/2, 118/2B and 118/2C. The appellant also owns the adjacent plots situated at SF No.121/1, 124/1 where another LTCT service connection of the appellant in SC No is situated. It is the case of the appellant company that in order to increase its business, improvement of the operations and also for easy maintenance, there is a requirement for extension of supply from his H.T.service connection to its adjacent plot by crossing a public road and surrender the LTCT service. Hence, a petition was filed by the appellant herein before the Forum. The matter was heard by the Forum and an order dated was passed rejecting the appellant s request which is impugned herein. It is seen from the impugned order that the Chairperson of CGRF had questioned the appellant as to whether approval was sought from Chief Electrical Inspector to Government for extension of H.T. Supply to the equipments installed in the premises where the LT CT service exists and the appellant herein had replied that after receipt of approval from TNEB, Chief Electrical Inspector to Government would be approached. The appellant had also cited two precedents in this regard where similar extension of electricity supply were sought for and permitted by the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, contended before the Forum that there is no 2

3 provision in the regulations/ Codes framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for extension of supply from a HT service connection by a non licensee and by crossing a public road. 3. Contentions of the appellant: Besides reiterating the necessity felt by him for extension of H.T. Supply, the appellant has also cited precedents in which such type of extension of supply have been allowed. The two cases cited by the appellant in this regard are as follows: i. Extension of H.T. Supply in the case of G.R. Thanga Maligai situated at Usman Road to its shop at the opposite road ii. Extension of H.T. Supply in the case of Saravana Stores at Avadi- Poonamallee Road, Veeraraghapuram area to its nearby premises to its commercial complex, Jamalaya Ice Cream (Saravana) by crossing a village Road. However, records pertaining only to one case i.e, G.R. Thangamaligai was produced during the hearing. Placing reliance on the above precedents, the appellant company prayed the Ombudsman to issue directions to the respondents to extend service connection to its adjacent plots. 4. Contentions of the respondent: The respondent filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, as follows: i. That there is no permanent physical segregation or compound wall between two operating sites and there is a country road which is a public road being used by the appellant as well as by nearby villagers. 3

4 ii. That the H.T. Service Connection has to be extended to the adjacent site by crossing the country road forming ducts by the appellant in a safe manner. iii. That there is no provision in the regulations framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission for extension of H.T.Supply from one premises to another by crossing public road for safety reasons. For the above reasons, the respondent sought dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. Hearing held by the Ombudsman: A hearing was held in the above matter before the Ombudsman on to enable the parties to put forth their views in person apart from written arguments. The appellant company was represented by Thiru S. Balamurugam, its Electrical Supervisor and the respondent himself appeared in person along with Tmt. Sivakami, PRO, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle (West) of the respondent Board. Both sides reiterated their stand taken in the written arguments. However, when queried by Ombudsman as to whether CEIG instructed him to get approval from TNEB for extension of H.T. Lines, the appellant stated that instructions were given orally. During the hearing the question as to the validity of permitting a non-licensee to transmit electricity came up for arguments, with the appellant seeking to justify his request on the basis of the precedents cited by him, and the respondents insisting on a safety certificate from CEIG and the CEIG, in turn, having advised the appellant to get approval from TNEB (as stated by the appellant), the appellant sought the approval for extension of the supply on his own. 6. Issues before the Ombudsman: I have carefully perused the records produced before me and heard both parties. On a careful consideration of rival submissions, I find that only one issue 4

5 arises for consideration i.e., whether a person other than a licensee can extend supply of electricity to an adjacent premises of his own, by crossing a public road, under the Electricity Act 2003? I proceed to discuss the same and render my findings as follows: 7. Findings of the Ombudsman: In order to settle the above issue, it is necessary to see whether extension of supply in a H.T.service connection from one premises to another (which is also owned by the HT service connection holder) by crossing a public road is permissible for a non-licensee and whether such extension would fall within the meaning transmission of electricity under the Electricity Act For this purpose, it is necessary to understand the definition of the word transmit under the Electricity Act The sub-section (74) of Section 2 of the Electricity Act which defines the word transmit is reproduced below for sake of easy reference. transmit means conveyance of electricity by means of transmission lines and the expression transmission shall be construed accordingly It may be seen from the above definition that the word transmit means conveyance of electricity by means of transmission lines. Conveyance of electricity, in any form, will certainly fall under the expression transmission of electricity, subject, of course to the transmission/ distribution within the area for which he obtained the service connection. Hence, it can be safely concluded that extension of lines to the adjacent premises by crossing a public road will fall within the meaning of conveyance by transmission of electricity. As the appellant is not a licensee under the Electricity Act 2003, it is to be seen whether a person other than a licensee can transmit electricity.. In order to answer this point, it is necessary to refer to Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003 which reads as follows: 5

6 12. Authorised persons to transmit, supply, etc. electricity :- No person shall - (a) transmit electricity ; or (b) distribute electricity ; or (c) undertake trading in electricity : unless he is authorized to do so by a licence issued under Section 14 or is exempt under Section 13. Section 13 of the Electricity Act 2003, enables the Appropriate Commission to declare that the provisions of section 12 shall not be applicable to any local authority, Panchayat Institution, users association, co-operative societies, nongovernmental organization, or franchisees on the recommendation of the Appropriate Government in public interest. It may be seen that under the Electricity Act 2003, in order to transmit electricity there should be a licence or the person who intends to transmit must have been exempted from obtaining a licence. The appellant is neither a holder of a licence nor a person who could be exempted under section 13 of the Electricity Act Hence, there is no scope for permitting the appellant company to transmit electricity on its own by whichever means. Now coming to the precedents cited by the appellant in support of his case, it is seen that the commercial establishment in Chennai by name G.R.Thanga Maligai was allowed to extend the H.T. service connection from one of its premises to another by crossing the public road.. During discussions it was originally indicated that approval by CEIG, for road crossing by a consumer himself to extend his supply might have been the requirement from the view point of safety under the Indian Electricity Rules On a detailed reading of the said rules, it turned out that there is no such provision in these rules. Then what is the basis 6

7 for the approval by Government? On being questioned further, the said approval through a Government Order was produced by TNEB. It is seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O. Ms No. 152 dated , on the recommendations of the Chief Engineer (Distribution) and Chief Electrical Inspector to Government,with certain conditions attached to it, have granted the approval. It may be noted that the said permission was granted at a time when the Electricity Act 2003 was not in force and the permission was granted under Section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act The said section reads as follows: 30. Control of transmission and use of energy.- (I) [save as otherwise exempted under this Act, no person other than Central Transmission Utility, State Transmission licensee, a licensee or a person to whom sanction is granted under Section 28, duly authorized under the terms of his license or sanction, as the case may be, shall transmit or use energy at a rate exceeding two hundred and fifty watts and one hundred volts] (a) in any street, or (b) in any place, - (i) in which one hundred or more persons are likely ordinarily to be assembled, or (ii) which is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), or a mine within the meaning of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), or (iii) to which the State Government by general or special order, declares the provisions of this sub-section to apply, Without giving, before the commencement of transmission or use of energy, not less than seven days notice in writing of his intention to the Electrical Inspector and to the District Magistrate, or in a presidency - town to the Commissioner of Police, containing particulars of the electrical installation and plant, if any, the nature and the purpose of 7

8 supply, and complying with such of the provisions of Part IV, and of the rules made thereunder, as may be applicable : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to energy used for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, on, or for the lighting or ventilation of the rolling stock, of, any railway subject to the provisions of [the Railways 1989 (24 of 1989] : Provided, also, that the (State Government) may, by general or special order or subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, exempt from the application of this section or any such provision or rule as aforesaid any person or class of persons using energy on premises upon or in connection with which it is generated, or using energy supplied under Par II specified in any place specified in clause (b). (2) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether a place is or is not one in which one hundred more persons are likely ordinarily to be assembled, the matter shall be referred to the State Government, and the decision of the [State Government] thereon shall be final. (3) The provisions of this section shall be binding on the [Government]. The above section forbids the transmission or use of electricity at a rate exceeding two hundred and fifty watts by any person other than the licensee to whom licence was granted under section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act However, the section also has a proviso to the effect that exemption can be made in certain circumstances which suggests that even a person who is not a licensee can transmit electricity under certain circumstances. The said proviso is reproduced again as follows: Provided, also, that the (State Government) may, by general or special order or subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, exempt from the application of this section or any such provision or rule as aforesaid any person or class of persons using energy on 8

9 premises upon or in connection with which it is generated, or using energy supplied under Par II specified in any place specified in clause (b). It may be seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu has exempted the application of the restraint imposed upon persons other than licensees from transmitting electricity, in case of G.R. Thanga Maligai, by a special order in accordance with the above referred proviso to section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 in the year It needs to be noted that the said exemption to G.R. Thanga Maligai by a special order was given by the Government on the basis of specific provisions under Part III ( of the Indian Electricity Act 1910) sections 28, 29 and 30 which deals with Supply, transmission and use of energy by non-licensees. However, there is no such provision in the Electricity Act 2003 which is analogous to the proviso contained in Section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and as such the present position is that only a licensee can transmit electricity and no other person can do the same. This can be seen from the language employed in section 12 of the Electricity Act It may be further seen that Indian Electricity Act 1910 has been repealed consequent to the enactment of the Electricity Act 2003 and hence section 30 of the said Act under which G.R. Thangamaligai got the permission from the Government has ceased to have effect anymore. However, sub-section (2) of Section 185 of the Act saves exemption granted under the said Act insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act Here again, it is to be noted that any exemption contemplated in the present context, on the lines similar to the action of the State Government in the year 1997 in the case of G.R. Thanga Maligai, would be inconsistent with Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003, there being no analogous provision such as section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 in the Electricity Act Hence, no analogy can be drawn between these two cases and the appellant s case cannot be equated with the case of G.R. Thangamaligai 9

10 .Hence, I am afraid I cannot be of any help to the appellant in this regard. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the appellant. 8. ORDER: In view of my foregoing findings, I am unable to interfere with the impugned order dated of the respondent. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. R.BALASUBRAMANIAN ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN To 1. M/s A.S. Shipping Agencies (P) Ltd, Shipping Agents & Chartering Brokers, New No.113, Old No.55, Armenian Street, Chennai The Chairperson (Superintending Engineer), Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Anna Nagar, Chennai The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai Secretary, TNERC 5.AD (Computer) with a soft copy to host the order in the website. 10

APPEAL PETITION No. P/003/2019 (Present: A.S. Dasappan) Dated: 27 th February 2019

APPEAL PETITION No. P/003/2019 (Present: A.S. Dasappan) Dated: 27 th February 2019 1 THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN Charangattu Bhavan, Building No.34/895, Mamangalam-Anchumana Road, Edappally, Kochi-682 024 www.keralaeo.org Ph: 0484 2346488, Mob: 91 9539913269 Email:ombudsman.electricity@gmail.com