Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xii) that condition 29 of the load sanctioning order dated 24.05.2005 issued by the respondent Electricity Board clearly reads that the meter and billing of consumers providing connection on dedicated feeders shall be done at the grid sub-station from where power supply emanates and for the other consumers it will be in the consumers premises. Since the appellant took a contract demand of 3200 kVA for its manufacturing unit under large industrial power supply category in September 2005 and in July 2006 additional load of 1500 KW was sanctioned which brought the total connected load to 5000 KW, the appellant was provided supply through a dedicated feeder (independent feeder). Being the case of a dedicated feeder, the two meters were installed, one at premises of the appellant and another at the grid sub-station of the Electricity Board. The purpose of installing the meter at the sub-station/grid sub-station of the respondent Electricity Board in case of the dedicate feeder, is to prevent theft of electricity as well as to ensure that the transmission and distribution (T&D) loss should not be more than 2-3% of the energy supplied to the consumers. In the case of the appellant, it was observed that the A.No.73 of 2014 & IA Nos. 142 of 2014 and 197 of 2014 SH difference of recording of energy consumed as per the meter in the appellant's premises and the meter installed at the licensees sub-station was very high as compared to the permissible limit of loss. This indicated that the appellant was drawing load in an unauthorised manner.

7.12 The other contention of the Electricity Board's counsel for installing appellant's meter at the grid sub-station is that the same has been done as per paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009. We may clearly mention here that the appellant's connection was released in 2005 and added load in 2006 when there was no State Supply Code but even in the absence of Supply Code 2009 the appellant's meter was installed at grid sub- station and a display meter was installed at the appellant's premises. Thus the practice of installing meter at the grid sub-station in case of the appellant was continued even without there being any Electricity Supply Code which came into effect four or five years later and the appellant was charged as per the reading recorded by the meter installed at the grid sub-station. There is no material or documentary evidence on record to show that the appellant/petitioner was drawing load in an unauthorized manner. Further there is no documentary evidence to establish that in the case of the appellant, the Electricity Board observed that the difference of energy consumed as per meter installed in the appellant's premises and the meter installed at licensee sub-station or grid sub- station was very high as compared to the permissible limit of loss. If there was such vast difference in recording of the energy consumed in the two meters of appellant and further the appellant was drawing load or power in an unauthorized manner, the appellant should have, at least, been informed by the Electricity Board at that time along with documentary evidence or the readings of the two A.No.73 of 2014 & IA Nos. 142 of 2014 and 197 of 2014 SH meters. Further, if appellant was drawing load in unauthorised manner then there are no datas produced by the Electricity Board before the State Commission or before this Appellate Tribunal. To meet the eventuality of drawing load in an unauthorised manner by any consumer like the appellant there are many provisions in the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulations framed there under. The reticence of the Electricity Board on these relevant data and facts is very important to indicate that the discretionary powers given to the respondent licensee by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009 have been wrongly and illegally exercised just to harass the appellant/ petitioner who is a consumer, connected to the connected load of 5000 KW and contract demand of 3200 kVA.

7.17 The Consumer Forum of Electricity Board consumers had given order dated 29,12.2012 and in that case there were admittedly two consumers on that feeder A.No.73 of 2014 & IA Nos. 142 of 2014 and 197 of 2014 SH and just on the basis of there being two consumers on that feeder, the Electricity Board is calling it 'not an independent feeder'. Experience and common knowledge in such matters disclose that when on a particular feeder there are two consumers the line loss will be more because they may be drawing electricity at comparatively low voltage as compared to a single consumer on a dedicated feeder connected on such a high load of 5000 KW and contract demand of 3200 kVA. In case of single consumer on dedicated feeder who is connected to the supply with total connected load of 5000 KW and contract demand of 3200 kVA in case of large industrial power category like the appellant, since such a consumer like the appellant has been drawing electricity at very very high voltage then naturally the transmission and distribution losses on that individual feeder will be almost minimal. When the HT or EHT consumers drawing power at a very high voltage draw the power from a transmission line or from any electricity line, the line losses are less / minimal and this aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the State Commission while passing the impugned order. This is a matter of common practice that when the HT/EHT category consumer draws power at high voltage, the line losses are very very low or minimal. If there are two consumers on the same feeder drawing power at the high voltage, transmission and distribution loss on that line will naturally be higher and more as compared to the case of the appellant.

7.20 Admittedly, when the appellant was released connection in the year 2005 and for added load in the year 2006 and when he was connected to the supply to total connected load of 5000 kW and contract demand of 3200 kVA, there were no regulations framed by the Central Electricity Authority, which regulations came into force subsequently. Apart from that at the relevant time there was no Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009 and even in the absence of the A.No.73 of 2014 & IA Nos. 142 of 2014 and 197 of 2014 SH CEA Regulations regarding installation and operation of meters and the said Supply Code, the said condition No. 29 provides for installation of consumer meter of the appellant at the grid sub-station of the licensee in the load sanction letters issued by the Electricity Board to the appellant/petitioner was inserted and that condition was in reality and true sense a general condition that was being incorporated in the load sanction letters to be issued at that time by the Electricity Board. Since the appellant/petitioner at the relevant time needed electricity he was left with no option other than being constrained to agree to the said condition No.29 even though there were no CEA Regulations or State Supply Code Regulations at the relevant time in the year 2005 and 2006. In such a way the large industrial power supply category of HT/EHT consumer viz. the appellant being a big consumer or customer of the Electricity Board connected to such a high load of 5000 kW and contract demand of 3200 kVA should not have been allowed to be subdued by anyone including the Electricity Board and such important condition could not be legally and reasonably inserted just on the basis of some recommendation of the Electricity Board committee. 7.21 We have deeply considered the Regulation 6(1) of CEA Regulations 2006 dealing with Installation and Operation of Meters. There is a proviso attached thereto that if the licensee installs a meter outside the premises of the consumer, it shall provide real time display unit at the consumer premises for his information to indicate the electricity consumed by the consumer. There was a purpose in containing such words in the shape of proviso to a rule and that purpose and intention, as it precisely appears to be, was that the real time display meter A.No.73 of 2014 & IA Nos. 142 of 2014 and 197 of 2014 SH installed at consumer premises was to give information to the said consumer to indicate the electricity consumed by the consumer. Thus the purpose of installation of a display meter is to give information to the consumer about the electricity consumed by him. If there is some difference between the energy recorded at the display meter installed at the consumer premises and at the meter installed at the licensee grid sub-station then the same indicates the loss of T&D in that line, for which in our considered opinion the consumers like the appellant / petitioner cannot be made liable in a legal way to pay. There may be a number of reasons causing T&D losses in any line for which we cannot allow any consumer like the appellant/petitioner before us to be penalized to pay and that too doubly, first in the shape of tariff order and secondly in the shape of determination of T&D loss of the whole circle.