The imposition of a reliability charge by an electricity distribution company, the appellant, on bulk consumers like a steel industry, the first respondent. The charge was imposed for uninterrupted power supply, but the first respondent disputed its legality. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission initially imposed the charge but later discontinued it, leading to a legal battle. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ultimately ruled against the imposition of the reliability charge, stating that the first respondent had already paid higher tariffs for uninterrupted supply and that there was no statutory basis for the charge. The appeal by the appellant was dismissed.

1. Background:

• The appellant, a distribution licensee in Maharashtra, imposed a reliability charge on bulk consumers like the first respondent, a steel industry.

2. Commission's Orders:

• The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission initially imposed the charge but later discontinued it, directing refunds for charges collected in previous years.

3. Legal Challenge:

• The first respondent challenged the imposition of the reliability charge before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.

4. Appellant's Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Commission had the power to impose such charges to improve supply quality.
• They claimed that the first respondent's non-participation in public hearings implied consent to pay the charge.
• It was argued that the first respondent, enjoying uninterrupted supply, should pay the reliability charge.

5. First Respondent's Arguments:

• The first respondent argued that they had already paid higher tariffs for uninterrupted supply, compensating the appellant.
• They contended that there was no statutory basis for the reliability charge.

6. Tribunal's Decision:

• The Tribunal ruled against the imposition of the reliability charge.
• They noted that the first respondent had already paid higher tariffs and that statutory provisions did not support the charge.
• The Tribunal also recognized the first respondent's objection through an industry association.

7. Legal Remedies:

• The Tribunal highlighted the availability of statutory appeal against the Commission's order.
• They noted the appellant's filing of a review petition for alternative charges.

8. Final Judgment:

• The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.
• The decision upheld the Tribunal's ruling against the imposition of the reliability charge.

The legal dispute over the reliability charge and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the absence of statutory support for the charge and the first respondent's already higher tariff payments for uninterrupted supply.