LexBRIHANMUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING versus MAHRASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (MERC) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 50 'A BRIHANMUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING v. .J MAHRASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (MERC) & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No.4223 of 2012) MAY 8, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] C Electricity Act, 2003 - ss.2(15) and 42(5) - Supply of electricity - Enforcement of distribution licensee obligation under the Act - Jurisdiction of Electricity Regulatory Commission to entertain dispute between a consumer and a distribution licencf!e - Petition filed by respondent no.3 before o Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking direction against Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) to supply electricity to him - Challenge to, on ground that respondent no. 3 had access to alternative remedy to raise his grievances before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) .E __ established uls.42 (5) - Held: Not tenable - As on the date, respondent no.3 approached the Regulatory Commission, he was not consumer of TPC but wanted to become its consumer - Insofar as CGRF is concerned, which each distribution licensee is required to set up uls.42 (5), it deals with the F grievances of the consumer as defined u/s. 2 (15) - Respondent No. 3 not being a consumer could not have approached GGRF -Regulatory Commission had requisite jurisdiction to entertain petition filed by respondent no.3. Electricity Act, 2003 - s.14, 15 and 172(b) - Supply of G electricity - Deemed distribution licensee - Nine provisos u/ s. 14 stipulating various circumstances under which no specific license required by making application u/s. 15 and if conditions stipulated in any of these provisos. were satisfied, H 50 BRIHANMUMBAI ELECT. SUP. & TRAN. UNDERTAKING v. 51 MAHRASHTRA ELECT. REG UL COMMN. such person to be treated as deemed· licensee - On facts, Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) claiming to be deemed distribution licensee under 1st proviso while appel/ant- Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) invoking 6th proviso to contend that TPC could not be deemed distribution licensee in the area where BEST was in operation - Whether TPC was not a deemed distribution licensee for the area in question and therefore not permitted to supply electricity to any consumer in that area - Held: A B Since as on the date of commencement of the Act, TPC became deemed licensee under the first proviso as its C predecessors were holding the distribution licence under the repealed laws and thereafter specific conditions of licence were formulated by the Regulatory Commission uls.16 mentioning the period of 15. 8. 2014, TPC was deemed licencee till 15. 8. 2014 - Once, it is held that TPC can be 0 treated as deemed distribution licensee under the first proviso to s. 14 and the area of the licence is the same which overlaps with the area covered by BEST, argument predicated on sixth proviso to s.14 not available to BEST - Tata Power's license to supply electricity clearly established. Electricity Act, 2003 - ss.42(3), 43, 45, 46 and 47 - Supply of electricity - Parallel distribution licensees - -'Availability of open access to Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) in the area covered by Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) - Permissibility of TPC to extend its network in BEST area of supply without its approval/consent - Whether unlike other distribution licensees, BEST being a local authority, no persons situated E F in BEST's area of supply could avail electricity from any other licensee, on account of BEST invoking a statutory exemption G available to a local authority u/s.42(3) and whether TPC could not extend its network in BEST's area of supply, without BEST's consent and agreement - Held: There is no exemption from universal service obligation to any distribution licensee under the Act, on account of the H 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A presence of a "local authority" as a distribution licensee in the particular area of supply, which is also reinforced by Paragraph 5. 4. 7 of the National Electricity Policy which clearly states that the second licensee in the same area shall have the obligation to supply to all consumers in accordance with B s.43 - The contention that if local authority is a distribution licensee in a particular area, there cannot be any other distribution licensee in that area without the permission of such a local authority, cannot be accepted - Not only such a con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.