BEFORE

THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

LUCKNOW

In the matter of: Appropriate directions for setting aside the order of UPPCL dated 31.8.2001 seeking to recover the 15% Independent Feeder Surcharge

And

In the matter of:

M/s Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited and others

 ORDER 

M/s Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd., (2) M/s Universal Glass Ltd., (3) M/s Central Electronics Ltd., (4) M/s Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd and (5) M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd filed petitions on 11.10.2001 challenging the demand for 15% surcharge levied by the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) under order dated 31.08.2001 for recovery of 15% surcharge on the Rate Schedule applicable to these industries.  Subsequently, 15 other petitioners filed petitions on different dates raising challenge to the validity of the said Order of the UPPCL dated 31.08.2001. 

2.   The controversy relates to a limited period of about twelve months. 

3.   It is to be noted that the Rate Schedule HV-2 meant for large and heavy industries is part of Rate Schedule notified by the UPPCL dated 07.08.2000, as approved by this Commission, and this Rate Schedule HV-2 is applicable to all the petitioners.  This Rate Schedule was based on the tariff for HV-2 as approved in the Commission’s tariff order dated 27.07.2000, which is given below:

“RATE SCHEDULE HV-2

LARGE AND HEAVY POWER 

This rate schedule applies to all consumers who have contracted load of more than 75 KW (100 BHP) for industrial purposes and or processing purpose as well as to Arc/Induction Furnaces, Rolling/Re-Rolling Mills, Mini Steel Plants and to any other power consumer not covered under any other rate schedule. 

This rate schedule shall also apply to commercial light, fan & power consumers and consumers covered under Rate Schedules LMV-2 and LMV-6, subject to the condition that they opt for this Rate Schedule (HV-2) and arrange the MDI/electronic metering equipment themselves. 

The current tariff for the category consists of demand charge of 125 per KVA per month plus energy of Rs. 3.70 per KWH.  The Commission appreciates the fact that the electricity rates for industry in this State are quite high and a sharp increase in the rates will be counter productive.  The number of industrial units setting up their own captive power plants is increasing and this trend needs to be arrested.  We are, therefore, increasing the demand and energy charges only by 5%.

A special rate for seasonal industries has been introduced.  To ensure availability of power to industries connected to independent feeders emanating to 132 KV, 220 KV, and 400 KV Sub stations, they shall be allowed to operate during the peak hours as well.  They will be able to do so by paying small additional charge of 15% of the amount of bill in a month.  These consumers will be ensured minimum 500 hours supply.  In case of shortfall in the guaranteed hours of supply a rebate of 1% per 10 hours or part thereof shall be admissible on the total amount of the bill.

 Fixed charges Rs. Per KVA per month and energy charges Paise per unit 

·        In case where demand is recorded in KW, the demand charge shall be computed assuming the power factor as 0.85.

·        For Connection in rural area getting power supply as per rural schedule as rebate of 10% on the amount of demand charge and energy charge will be given.

·        In respect of the supply during peak hours/restricted hours, the consumer shall have to take the permission from UPPCL with the intimation to the Commission.” 

4.                  According to the data provided by UPPCL, these petitioners were being supplied electricity on independent feeder and were having the advantage of assured supply of minimum 500 hours in a month and further that a rebate @ 1% per 10 hours or part thereof was admissible in the event of shortfall in the guaranteed hours of supply. 

5.                  The UPPCL issued a Circular letter dated 08.09.2000 providing, in substance, that if a consumer does not want to avail of the assured supply of minimum 500 hours in a month, he can by means of a registered letter, indicate his option for that purpose and in such case 15% surcharge will not be chargeable.  The petitioners’ claim benefit of the concession as per this Circular.  

6.                  The said Circular letter was subsequently withdrawn by the UPPCL as per their order dated 31.08.2001.  According to the petitioners, the said notification was withdrawn by the UPPCL after and as a consequence of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 25.04.2001 in Civil Misc.  Writ Petition No. 40692 of 2000 (M/s L.M.L.Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). This writ petition was against the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCO), which is a subsidiary of the UPPCL.  Appeal against this judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is said to have been filed by M/s LML Ltd and is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  The matter, as such, is sub judice.   

7.                  It may be mentioned that the Hon’ble High Court considered the question of legality of the said circular dated 08.09.2000 and held in categorical terms that “the contention raised on the basis of Circular dated 8.9.2000 issued from the Office of the Chief General manager (Commercial), UPPCL is equally untenable.”  It was further observed that “this is a clear alteration of the approved tariff which is not permissible in law” and further “the scheme of the Act which we have referred to in detail clearly shows that a tariff approved by the Commission alone can be implemented by a licensee and it has no power to alter or modify the same.  The circular of UPPCL, in so far as it is inconsistent with the tariff approved by the Commission, is void and wholly inoperative in law”. 

8.                  During the course of arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the face of the categorically recorded finding by the Hon’ble High Court as to the legality of the Circular dated 08.09.2000 in the afore-mentioned writ petition, it will be proper for the petitioners to approach the Hon’ble High Court.  An application for this purpose has been filed before this Commission on 27.08.2002 to the effect that “This Hon’ble Commission may, therefore, while keeping the aforesaid petitions/representations/cases, permit the parties to approach the Hon’ble High Court in this regard”.   

9.                  Upon consideration, it is observed that this is not for this Commission to permit the petitioners to approach the Hon’ble High Court in this regard.  It is for the petitioners themselves to take decision in the matter, as they may deem appropriate as per the legal advice tendered to them. 

10.              In this situation, no action is called for by this Commission. 

       (Arun Sarkar)                              (S.C. Dhingra)                              (J.L. Bajaj)

            Member                                        Member                                      Chairman

 Place: Lucknow

Date:  September 12, 2002

 

[ Home ]