Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The reliefs claimed by all the five Petitioners, namely Respondents 3 to 7, were common to the extent that they challenged the Circular dated 2nd September, 1999. Eurotex, Respondent No. 3, in addition asked for reduction in the contract demand and for permission to supply electricity from its CPP to its own unit in a nearby plot. Since common questions were raised by the five CPP holders, the Commission dealt with them together and passed a common order. For our purpose it is not necessary to state in detail the facts in respect of each of the CPP holders. Only thing necessary to be stated is the peculiar fact for Eurotex which built its CPP at Plot No. E-23, MIDC, Gokul Shri gaon, District Kolhapur. It wanted to supply power to its own plot at MIDC which was in the vicinity but across the road. According to Eurotex it was verbally assured by the Chairman in meetings held on 13th July, 1999 and 3rd September, 1999 that no permission was required for extending the CPP supply to another plot of the same CPP holder. Eurotex accordingly, laid the underground cables and started supplying power from its CPP at Plot No. E-23 to its Plot No. E-1. Subsequently, Eurotex received communication from MSEB asking Eurotex to discontinue the CPP supply to its unit at E-1 on the ground that it was unauthorized. Eurotex, therefore, asked MERC for permission to supply electricity to its Plot at E-1. Eurotex further wanted to reduce its contract demand. In view of the Circular dated 2nd September, 1999, Eurotex wanted to combine the contract demand for its two CPP plants which together was 5300 kVA but the individual capacity of each was less than 5 MVA. This was declined on the basis of circular dated 2nd September, 1999.