Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL), a distribution company, challenging the judgment dated 03rd February 2009 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The dispute involved Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL), which operated a captive generating plant and used AVVNL's distribution system for wheeling electricity under open access regulations. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission framed the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004, later amended in 2006, governing open access agreements. An agreement was executed between AVVNL and HZL on 22nd September 2006, with clauses detailing tariff for standby supply and billing procedures. Clause 29(1)(f) initially provided that inadvertent drawal of electricity in excess of regular and standby supply would be billed at temporary supply tariff. The Commission issued a standard format agreement on 03rd January 2007, but Clause 29(1)(f) was altered. AVVNL sought clarifications, leading to the Commission examining the matter in Petition No.134/07. On 15th September 2007, the Commission altered Clause 29(1)(f) to specify that inadvertent drawal would be billed at the regular supply tariff, not temporary supply. The core legal issue was the applicability of tariff for inadvertent drawal under the open access regulations. AVVNL contested this alteration, arguing it contradicted the initial agreement and regulations. The court analyzed the regulatory framework under Sections 42 and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Commission's power to specify terms. It reasoned that the Commission's order was within its authority to clarify and implement regulations, ensuring consistency in billing. The court upheld the Commission's alteration, affirming that inadvertent drawal should be charged at regular supply tariff as per the revised standard format agreement. The appeal was dismissed, favoring the regulatory decision.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Open Access Regulations - Tariff for Inadvertent Drawal - Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 42, 181 - Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2004 - Dispute arose from the interpretation of Clause 29(1)(f) of the open access agreement regarding billing for inadvertent drawal of electricity - The Commission initially specified temporary supply tariff but later altered it to regular supply tariff via order dated 15th September 2007 - The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's judgment dated 03rd February 2009 was assailed by the distribution company - Held that the Commission's order altering the tariff from temporary to regular supply for inadvertent drawal is valid and binding under the regulatory framework (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tariff for inadvertent drawal of electricity under an open access agreement should be at the temporary supply rate or the regular supply rate as per the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission's regulations and subsequent orders
Final Decision
The court upheld the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission's order dated 15th September 2007, altering Clause 29(1)(f) to specify that inadvertent drawal of electricity be billed at regular supply tariff, dismissing the appeal
Law Points
- Interpretation of open access regulations
- tariff applicability for inadvertent drawal under Electricity Act 2003
- contractual obligations under standard format agreements
- regulatory commission's power to alter agreement clauses
