Petition No. 16 of 2006
Date of Order: 13.10. 2006
|In the matter of||:||Petition against the Tariff Order dated 10.5.2006 allowing surcharge @ 10% & 17.5% on Induction Furnace working on 11 KV supply voltage w.e.f. 01.04.2006.|
|In the matter of||:||Induction Furnace Association of North India (Regd.), Room No.212, 2nd Floor, Savitri Complex, G.T.Road, Ludhiana, through its Sr.Vice President Shri Sandeep Jain.|
|Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another|
|Present||:||Shri Jai Singh Gill, Chairman|
|Smt. Baljit Bains, Member|
|Shri Satpal Singh Pall, Member|
|For the Petitioner||:||Shri Sandeep Jain|
|For the Board||:||Sh.N.K.Khanna, Advisor Commercial & Regulatory Affairs|
|Sh. R.K.Singla, Director Tariff Regulations II|
This petition has been filed for review of part of Tariff Order dated May 10, 2006 passed by the Commission vide which the Commission has ordered to continue surcharge on the Arc Furnace Consumers as under:-
“For Large Supply consumers with contract demand exceeding 2500 KVA and upto 4000 KVA catered at 11 KV, surcharge @ 10% is leviable on consumption charges including demand charges, if any, or monthly minimum charges as compensation for transformation losses, incremental line losses etc. A surcharge of 17.5% is leviable on consumption charges including demand charges, if any, or monthly minimum charges on all Arc Furnace consumers and other Large Supply consumers having contract demand above 4000 KVA and catered at 11 KV.”
There is delay of 28 days in filing the petition. The petitioner has prayed for condonation of the delay on the ground that the petitioner had made representation to the Commission in this regard on 25.5.2006 i.e. within limitation.
Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. PSEB filed reply stating that there is delay in filing the petition and that tariff already decided for FY 2006-07 may be allowed to be continued and the petitioner may be ordered to present their views in the public hearing at the time of consideration of ARR for the year 2007-08.
Since the petitioner had made representation to the Commission within limitation, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.
Before proceeding further it is necessary to first examine and determine the scope of review under the Electricity Act and other relevant legal provisions. Under Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Commission, for the purpose of any enquiry or proceedings under the Act has the same powers as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of the matters listed in that section and one of the matters listed is ‘reviewing its decisions, directions and orders’. As such relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the review petitions. Under the Code of Civil Procedure review can be entertained only if the conditions listed in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code are fulfilled. As per this provision review is allowed only on three specific grounds namely:-
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or
for any other sufficient reason
Regulation 64 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005 also provides for the same grounds for filing review as mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The charges which are sought to be reviewed in this petition were ordered to be continued in the Tariff Orders passed by the Commission for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. In view of this it cannot be said that the petition has been filed on the basis of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason necessitating review of the Tariff Order. The grounds for review filed by the petitioner are therefore not covered under the conditions as laid down in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Regulation 64 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005. The petition is therefore not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
|(Satpal Singh Pall)||(Baljit Bains)||(Jai Singh Gill)|