ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003

Facts: TPC has been generating and supplying electricity to distribution licensees like RInfra and BEST respectively licenses were granted to TPC to generate and supply power. Accordingly it began procuring bulk power from TPC generating stations. Thereafter the Maharashtra State Electricity Board gave consent to the Saphale power project of RInfra and approval however was not granted to the Bhivpur project of TPC. Against that TPC filed a writ petition in High Court. It was alleged in the said petition that the impugned decision of the MSEB was illegal and contrary to the 1948 Act, which forbade it from granting sanction to any other person to generate electricity if the existing bulk licensee was able and willing to supply power. Thereafter the 2003 Act came into force under the new Act the `Generating Companies' have been given freedom of choice to sell power to any licensee and the concept of `open access' which allows the distribution licensee to source its power from any generating company. The distributors accordingly under the changed law do not have to depend upon state based generators to meet their needs.

Held: The Act clearly shows that the generating company indirectly comes within the purview of regulatory jurisdiction as and when directions are issued to the distributing companies by the appropriate Commission but the same would not mean that while exercising the said jurisdiction, the Commission will bring within its umbrage the generating company also for the purpose of issuance separate direction. The 2003 Act even permits the generating company to supply electricity to a consumer directly. For the said purpose what is necessary is to comply with the provisions of the Act , Rules and the Regulations.

Facts: TPC has been generating and supplying electricity to distribution licensees like RInfra and BEST respectively licenses were granted to TPC to generate and supply power. Accordingly it began procuring bulk power from TPC generating stations. Thereafter the Maharashtra State Electricity Board gave consent to the Saphale power project of RInfra and approval however was not granted to the Bhivpur project of TPC. Against that TPC filed a writ petition in High Court. It was alleged in the said petition that the impugned decision of the MSEB was illegal and contrary to the 1948 Act, which forbade it from granting sanction to any other person to generate electricity if the existing bulk licensee was able and willing to supply power. Thereafter the 2003 Act came into force under the new Act the `Generating Companies' have been given freedom of choice to sell power to any licensee and the concept of `open access' which allows the distribution licensee to source its power from any generating company. The distributors accordingly under the changed law do not have to depend upon state based generators to meet their needs.

Held: The Act clearly shows that the generating company indirectly comes within the purview of regulatory jurisdiction as and when directions are issued to the distributing companies by the appropriate Commission but the same would not mean that while exercising the said jurisdiction, the Commission will bring within its umbrage the generating company also for the purpose of issuance separate direction. The 2003 Act even permits the generating company to supply electricity to a consumer directly. For the said purpose what is necessary is to comply with the provisions of the Act , Rules and the Regulations.

Facts: M/s NTPC Ltd. is a power 'generating company'. The Electricity Boards concerned receive the power generated from the thermal power plants of NTPC. The Central Commission had determined the tariff payable by the Electricity Boards to NTPC by the above referred. There after the petitions filed by NTPC for determining the tariff with respect to the power supplied by it to MPSEB and others from Gandhar, Kawas, the Rihand power station to PSEB, Delhi Vidyut Board and others. The Central Commission while determining the tariff had determined the final tariff at a rate lesser than the pre-existing tariff, as a result of which NTPC was found to have collected excess amounts during this intervening period and the Electricity Boards became entitled to get the refund of these differential amounts. Thus, the amount overcharged in respect of Gandhar power station. The Central Commission had however disallowed the claim of the Electricity Boards for payment of interest thereafter NTPC has duly and immediately adjusted the excess amounts in favour of the purchaser Electricity Boards in their subsequent bills.

Held: Once the tariff was finalised subsequently, NTPC had adjusted the excess amount which it had received. It cannot be said that during this period the NTPC was claiming the charges in an unjust way thus claim for interest could not be covered. The provision for interest was introduced by Regulations subsequent to the period which was under consideration before the Commission. There was however an error on its part in granting the same and notification did not contain any provision for interest. Therefore interest could not be claimed either on the basis of equity or on the basis of restitution.

Facts: M/s NTPC Ltd. is a power 'generating company'. The Electricity Boards concerned receive the power generated from the thermal power plants of NTPC. The Central Commission had determined the tariff payable by the Electricity Boards to NTPC by the above referred. There after the petitions filed by NTPC for determining the tariff with respect to the power supplied by it to MPSEB and others from Gandhar, Kawas, the Rihand power station to PSEB, Delhi Vidyut Board and others. The Central Commission while determining the tariff had determined the final tariff at a rate lesser than the pre-existing tariff, as a result of which NTPC was found to have collected excess amounts during this intervening period and the Electricity Boards became entitled to get the refund of these differential amounts. Thus, the amount overcharged in respect of Gandhar power station. The Central Commission had however disallowed the claim of the Electricity Boards for payment of interest thereafter NTPC has duly and immediately adjusted the excess amounts in favour of the purchaser Electricity Boards in their subsequent bills.

Held: Once the tariff was finalised subsequently, NTPC had adjusted the excess amount which it had received. It cannot be said that during this period the NTPC was claiming the charges in an unjust way thus claim for interest could not be covered. The provision for interest was introduced by Regulations subsequent to the period which was under consideration before the Commission. There was however an error on its part in granting the same and notification did not contain any provision for interest. Therefore interest could not be claimed either on the basis of equity or on the basis of restitution.

Facts: The Respondent is the supplier of electricity in the Chhattisgarh and Appellants are the consumers. As per the Board, the Appellants were found committing theft of the electricity which was revealed when the Electricity meter of the Appellant was inspected by the Inspection Team of the Board. It transpired that instead of the approved 55.204 KW, the Appellants were using load of 59.810 KW and the meter was also tampered with. The Board made a complaint to the Station House Officer. On the aforesaid allegations with request to register a FIR against the Appellants on the basis of a complaint. After investigating into the matter, officer in-charge of the Police Station filed the challan who passed order taking cognizance of offence under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Against this order.

Held: The court held that amendment under Section 151 of Electricity Act is clarificatory in nature only and the First Information Report can be registered with the police under the said act.

Facts: Appellants had challenged the vires of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as null and void before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and prayed for quashing regulations. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals holding that its jurisdiction was restricted by the limits imposed by the parent statute which is the Electricity Act, 2003. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the appropriate course of action for the appellants is to proceed by way of judicial review under the Constitution.

Held: The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The validity of the Regulations may, however, be challenged by seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts: Appellants had challenged the vires of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as null and void before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and prayed for quashing regulations. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals holding that its jurisdiction was restricted by the limits imposed by the parent statute which is the Electricity Act, 2003. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the appropriate course of action for the appellants is to proceed by way of judicial review under the Constitution.

Held: The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the Regulations framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 178 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The validity of the Regulations may, however, be challenged by seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts: Inspection was made by in the premises of the Respondent and it was found that there was a theft of energy by tampering the meter by the Respondent. The provisional assessment was made assessing the value of energy which was consumed on account of un-metered consumption and criminal case had been registered against the Respondent. In the intra Court appeal, the Respondents had raised a ground that two parallel proceedings is the criminal complaint before the Competent Court and also assessment and could not go Precisely it was the case of the Respondents that once a complaint was filed, the High Court had held that only in cases where restoration was sought after disconnection, authorities could resort to make assessment.

Held: It appears that after inspection team notices unauthorized use of energy by tampering the meter, the authorities could disconnect the power supply immediately and make immediate assessment for loss of energy. Whereas allegation was of unauthorized use of energy amounting to theft, in such cases, apart from assessing the proceedings under Section 126(1) of the Act, a complaint also can be lodged alleging theft of energy as defined under Section 135(1) of the Act. On such determination of civil liability by the Special Court, the excess amount, if any, deposited by the Petitioner, was to be refunded to the consumer.

Facts: Inspection was made by in the premises of the Respondent and it was found that there was a theft of energy by tampering the meter by the Respondent. The provisional assessment was made assessing the value of energy which was consumed on account of un-metered consumption and criminal case had been registered against the Respondent. In the intra Court appeal, the Respondents had raised a ground that two parallel proceedings is the criminal complaint before the Competent Court and also assessment and could not go Precisely it was the case of the Respondents that once a complaint was filed, the High Court had held that only in cases where restoration was sought after disconnection, authorities could resort to make assessment.

Held: It appears that after inspection team notices unauthorized use of energy by tampering the meter, the authorities could disconnect the power supply immediately and make immediate assessment for loss of energy. Whereas allegation was of unauthorized use of energy amounting to theft, in such cases, apart from assessing the proceedings under Section 126(1) of the Act, a complaint also can be lodged alleging theft of energy as defined under Section 135(1) of the Act. On such determination of civil liability by the Special Court, the excess amount, if any, deposited by the Petitioner, was to be refunded to the consumer.