Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ig He then put to execution the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in RCS No. 194 of 2000 and confirmed by the District Court by filing an execution petition bearing Regular Darkhast No. 29 of 2009. In the execution petition, he asserted that as a permanent injunction was granted against the MSEB, the respondent, which was its successor, was bound by the decree and was bound to charge for the electricity at the rate applicable for residential use. He prayed that appropriate action be taken against the respondent for breach of the injunction.

The MERC has accordingly been set up for the State of Maharashtra, which has fixed a new tariff for electricity in the State of Maharashtra. As per the new tariff fixed by MERC, the petitioner is liable to pay for the electric power at a rate applicable to non-domestic users. As regards the decision in RCS No. 194 of 2000, the respondent contended that the decision has become inexecutable in view of fixation of new tariffs by the MERC and the decision has ceased to have a binding force. The contention of the respondent was accepted by the executing court which by its order dated 29th March 2010 held that the decree in RCS No. 194 of 2000 cannot be executed. Aggrieved by the decision of the executing Court, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Before I proceed to consider what is the appropriate tariff to be charged for the electric power consumed by the petitioner in the suit flat, it would be necessary to consider the effect of the decree passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 became final on it being upheld by the District Court in appeal. The decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be set aside by an enactment passed by the legislature.

5. Section 2(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines "appropriate commission" to mean Central Regulatory Commission" referred to in sub-section (1) of section 76, "State Regulatory Commission" referred to in section 82 or "Joint Commission" referred to in section 83 as the case may be. In pursuance of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State of Maharashtra has set up Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) which is the appropriate Commission in the present case. Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers a power on the commission to determine the tariff for electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act for (a) supply of electricity by generating company to a distribution company, (b) transmission of electricity, (c) wheeling of electricity, and (d) retail sale of electricity. Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 thus confers a power on the MERC to determine the electricity tariff for retail sale of electricity by the respondent. The tariff determined by the MERC in accordance with the powers conferred on it by section 62 would override the tariff which was fixed by the MSEB in the past. The tariff which was in force and the classification for different kinds of uses that were fixed by the MSEB prior to the fixation of the new tariff by the MERC would cease to apply with effect from the date from which the MERC determines the tariff. Therefore, the tariff which was in force when RCS No. 194 of 2000 and the appeal arising therefrom were decided and the classifications of consumers made by MSEB in the tariff ceased to apply with effect from the date the MERC determined the electricity tariff in accordance with the power conferred on it by section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The trial Court, therefore, committed no error in holding that the decree passed in RCS 194 of 2000 was not enforceable when the execution petition was filed as new tariff filed by MERC was applicable.