Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 622 (JHR)

Supre Smelters Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation

2015-05-13

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : In these writ applications, petitioners challenged the letters issued by Chief Engineer (Commercial), Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'DVC'), whereby and whereunder the DVC demanded security deposit as per the provision of Clause 10.2 of the Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation Code 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'Regulation') for continuing the electrical supply. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Regulation issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'JSERC') has no application on DVC because previously DVC was only a transmission licensee. It is submitted that according to Section 79 of the Electricity Act tariff determined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'CERC') was applicable to the DVC, because DVC is generating and selling electricity in more than one State. Thus, previously there was dispute as to which commission will determine the distribution tariff of the DVC. 3. It appears that DVC has filed a counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 3182 of 2012. In the above counter affidavit the DVC annexed the order dated 30.09.2013 passed in Petition No. 277 of 2010 and Petition No. 293 of 2010 by CERC. It appears from the aforesaid order that CERC observed that DVC shall file application for determination of retail tariff before respective State Commission for the period 2009-14 and pursue the matter for expeditious determination of distribution tariff. Thus, from the aforesaid observation, it is clear that there is no distribution tariff from 2009 on the basis of which DVC can raise bill from its consumers. 4. It is stated at the bar that during the pendency of these writ applications, the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission determined the distribution tariff for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 2015-16 for the DVC and the said tariff became effective w.e.f. 4th September 2014. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that in the year 2012, there is no tariff issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Thus, the DVC is not entitled to raise any bill for security amount as provided under Section 10 (2) of the Regulation. 5. However, learned counsels for the petitioners submit that after determination of distribution tariff for the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, the petitioners are ready to pay the security amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement, which was entered in between them and the DVC. 6. 5. However, learned counsels for the petitioners submit that after determination of distribution tariff for the year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, the petitioners are ready to pay the security amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement, which was entered in between them and the DVC. 6. Learned counsel for the DVC, after taking telephonic instruction from Sri Rajiv Goswami, Dy. Chief Engineer, DVC, fairly submitted that the DVC has no objection, if the petitioners are ready to pay the security amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement read with Section 47 of the Electricity Act and Clause 10 (2) of the Regulation. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission of the parties, these applications are disposed of with following direction:- (i) The DVC will not insist to levy security deposit as per the impugned letters annexed with the writ applications. (ii) The DVC is entitled to raise demand for security amount w.e.f. 4th September, 2014 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement read with Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Clause 10 (2) of the Jharkhand Electricity Supply Regulation Code, 2005.