LexMAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION versus RELIANCE ENERGY LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ ....(, MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION A v. RELIANCE ENERGY LTD. AND ORS. AUGUST 14, 2007 [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Electricity Act, 2003-ss. 42(5) and (6), 86(l)(j) and 128-State Electricity Regulatory Commission-Jurisdiction of-To issue direction to its licenceesldistributors and to decide the dispute of individual consumer- C Held: Commission has power to issue general directions to prevent harassment to the public at large by its licenceesldistributors-But a blanket direction without making a proper investigation in the issue is unsustainable- Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute of individual consumer-Such dispute has to be decided by Consumer Grievance Redressa/ Forum and ombudsman created under Regulations by the State-Maharashtra. D Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003. In the C.A. No. 2846 of 2006, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory commission (appellant), on receiving complaints from consumers against its licencees/distributors, without getting an investigation done, directed the E Iicencees/distributors to withdraw the supplementary/amendment Bills issued by them and to refund the amount collected to the concerned consumers. The order of the Commission was set aside by the appellate Tribunal and directed that each consumer should approach the forum created u/s 42(5) of Electricity Act, 2003. F In appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was whether the Commission had power to give a general direction to its licencees/distributors. In Civil Appeal No. 3551 of 2006, the question for consideration was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to decide the dispute of individual G consumer. Disposing of Appeal No. 2846/2006 and allowing the Appeal No. 3551/ 2006, the Court. 9 H IO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A HELD: Civil Appeal No. 2846 of 2006 I. I. In view of Section 86(1) (f) of Electricity Act, the State Government has only power to adjudicate upon disputes betweenHcensees and generating companies. It follows that the Commission cannot adjudicate disputes relating to grievances of individual consumers. The adjudicatory function of the B Commission is thus limited to the matter prescribed in Section 86(1)(1). (Para 121 (19-F, G) . 1.2. The Commission has power to issue directions. The Commission is empowered with all powers right from granting licence and laying down C the conditions of licence and to frame regulations and to see that the same are properly enforced and also power to enforce the conditions of licence under · sub-section (6) of Section 128. (Paras 14 and 15) (20-G, F) 1.3. When the Commission received a spate of complaints from consumers against its licensees/distribution companies that they are arbitrarily issuing supplementary/amended bills and charging excess amounts D for supply of electricity, it felt persuaded to invoke its general power to supervise the licensees/distribution companies and in that connection issued notice. There can be no manner of doubt that the Commission has full power to pull up any of its licensee or distribution company to see that the rules and regulations laid down by the Commission are properly complied with. It is. E the duty of the Commission under Sections 45(5), 55(2), 57, 62, 86, 128, 129, 181 and other provisions of the Act to ensure that the public is not harassed. (P~ra 16) 121-A, 8, CJ · 1.4: The Commission did not get an investigation made under Section 128(1) which it could have done, and without that, and without getting a report F under Section 128(5) it passed an order directing refund of the amounts co~lected by the licensees/distribution compan~es, was not permissible, since such a direction could, if at all, be given after getting a report of the investigation agency. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order to that extent is correct that the individual G consumers should have approached the appropriate forum under Section 42(5) ·• of the Act. [Para 17) (21-D, E, F) 1.5. Though the Commission has power to issue a general direction to licencees that they should abide by conditions of the licence issued by them and charge only as per the tariff fixed under the Act so that the public at H large should not be harassed, but so far as the blanket direction given by the )- j "" ' MAHARASHTRA E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.