Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

59. Learned counsel for 2nd Respondent submitted that Distribution Company is a successor company of erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board and therefore, its area of supply is same as that of the area of supply of MSEB. What was the area of supply of MSEB under the repealed Acts? Section 26 of 1948 Act gave powers of licensee under 1910 Act to the SEBs established under 1948 Act. Section 26 of 1948 Act read as under:

26. Board to have powers and obligations of licensee under Act 9 of 1910.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall, in respect of the whole State, have all the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and this Act shall be deemed to be the license of the Board for the purposes of that Act:

60. Plain reading of above would reveal that MSEB had powers and obligations of licensee in respect of whole state. In other words, area of supply of MSEB was whole of Maharashtra. Both the learned counsel for the State Commission as well as for 2nd Respondent could not produce any material to show that while granting distribution license to Mula Pravara by state Government in 1971, its area of supply was deleted from the area of supply MSEB. There could be Natural offshoots of this proposition;

Judgment in Appeal No 39of 2011 Firstly if MSEB's area of supply was not modified then MSEB and, by virtue of being MSEB's successor company, the Distribution Licensee already had license to supply power in MPECS' area of supply. It is to be pointed out there was no bar of having multiple licensees in the same area under 1910 Act. In fact there was an explicit provision of 2nd license in same area of supply in form of Section 3(e) of 1910 Act which is quoted below:

II. The reading of the Regulation 5 and 6 of State Commission's General Conditions of Supply Regulations, 2006 would clearly indicate the procedure for invoking Section 18 is quite different from the procedure as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act. Two major differences in these distinct procedures are: Firstly, public notice is required to be published in Judgment in Appeal No 39of 2011 news papers widely circulated in the affected area of supply. Area of supply in case of fresh license is restricted to MPECS's area of supply i.e. five talcuas only. On the other hand, area of supply for amendment of existing license of Distribution Company covers whole of Maharashtra. With the amendment of existing license and merging of old area of supply with new area of supply, the tariff of consumers in the existing area of supply could get affected. Thus, the objections of the consumers of existing area of supply of Distribution Company were essential failing which the requirements of Section 18 cannot be said to have been met with. Secondly, Regulation 6.2 (b) requires publication of description of alteration or modifications for which application has been made to the Commission along with rationale and justifications for the same for such alteration or modifications of license in the public notice. Simple reading of the public notice published by Distribution Company on 5.12.2010 would indicate that the Distribution Company's plan to merge the new license for MPECS' area with old license for MSEB area had not been reflected anywhere in this notice. Mere reference to 5 year business plan as a part of application for fresh license cannot be said to have met the requirements of Regulation 6.2 (b) which Judgment in Appeal No 39of 2011 categorically states that the notice for application for amendment or modification in the license under Section 18 of the Act shall contain description of alteration or modifications for which application has been made to the Commission along with rationale and justifications for the same for such alterations or modifications of license. It is clearly established that the State Commission had not followed the said procedure laid down for the merger or amendment of the license in the Act as well as the Regulations. There is no material to substantiate the contention of the Respondents that the procedure under Section 18 had been followed in this case. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the order regarding the amendment of Distribution license for MSEB area of supply by merging it with MPEC's area of supply is violative of the provisions of the Act and Regulations and therefore liable to be set aside. Being successor company of erstwhile MSEB, the Distribution Company is a deemed licensee under 5th proviso of Section 14 of the Act. Accordingly it inherited area of supply from MSEB. What was the area of supply of MSEB? Plain reading of Section 26 of 1948 Act would reveal that erstwhile MSEB had powers and obligations of licensee in respect of whole state. In other words, area Judgment in Appeal No 39of 2011 of supply of MSEB was whole of Maharashtra. Both the learned counsel for the State Commission as well as for 2nd Respondent could not produce any material to show that while granting distribution license to Mula Pravara by state Government in 1971, its area of supply was deleted from the area of supply MSEB. Natural offshoot of this proposition would be that if MSEB's area of supply was not modified then MSEB and, by virtue of being MSEB's successor company, the Distribution Licensee already had license to supply power in MPECS' area of supply. It is to be pointed out that there was no bar for having multiple licensees in the same area under 1910 Act. In fact there was an explicit provision of 2nd license in same area of supply in form of Section 3(e) of 1910 Act which is quoted below: