Tea Company v. ASEB

uipments, as the name suggested, are to perform similar functions to that of the main equipments. Therefore, two sets of equipments, i.e. CTC and Orthodox manuf acturing processes performing dissimilar functions cannot be classified as spare /standby equipments to each other, even though they are separated by changeover switch/electrical equipment. Thus, the impugned circular/letter in no way effect s the rights of the petitioner as provided in the Terms and Conditions of 1998. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-Tea Company while urging for th e relief sought for submits that by way of the impugned circular/letter in the n ame of clarification, the respondent-Board tried to amend the provisions of the definition of the connected load without providing any opportunity to a consumer like the petitioner as per sub-clause (ii) of Clause 28 of the Terms and Condit ions of Supply, 1998 and moreso, the said circular/letter has been issued withou t giving any wide publicity and as a result, the liability of the petitioner wou ld be higher in side and the petitioner-Tea Company would be liable to pay highe r rates though they are not supposed to pay the same. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent-ASEB while countering the submission of Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-Tea Company s ubmits that whether use of different machines/ equipments for manufacturing CTC and Orthodox tea can be classified as standby/ spare equipments can only be deci ded by technical experts, not by the writ court and in the instant case, that h as already been decided by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission vide its order dated 27-10-2003 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition). He further submits that the impugned circular/ letter is not the amendment of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1998, rather a mere clarificatory order. He also submits that due to notification dated 30-08-2004, the Assam Electricity Regulatory Comm ission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2004 came into force and the said regulation authorizes the State Regulatory Commission to dec ide the issue relating to recovery of Electricity Charges, intervals of billing of electricity charges, disconnection of electricity for non-payment of charges, restoration of supply of electricity etc. and in the said regulation of 2004, i n regulation 1.3 defined the (cid:28)Connected Load (cid:29) which is as under :- (cid:28) Connected Load means aggregate of the manufacturer’s rated capacities of all e nergy consuming devices, connected with the distribution licensee mains in the c onsumer’s installation and which can be simultaneously used; This shall be expre ssed in Kw, kVA or HP units and shall be determined as per the procedure laid do wn by the Licensee with the approval of the Commission as specified in these Re gulations. (cid:29) Thus, it can be said that the Commission is the authority to decide the issue in dispute herein and Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides a provisio n for appeal against an order of Commission to the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner has some alternative remedy, but without exercising the same the pet itioner has approached this writ court. On that ground also, the instant writ pe tition is not maintainable. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and going to the reco rds as available, this court is of considered opinion that it is not necessary f or the court to decide as to whether use of two machines for manufacturing two t ypes of tea would be considered as a spare/standby equipment or not as the same can only be decided by an authority which has the technical expertisation. But a t the same time, the court should also not ignore the grievances of the petition er mainly on the ground that the aforesaid clarificatory note though was issued, but the same was not given wide publicity so that the consumers can know what a re their liabilities and how they can and in what situation they have to pay the higher charges. As the present petitioner before approaching this court did not approach any statutory authority like the State Electricity Board, it would be proper to ask the petitioner to approach first the statutory authority raising a ll his grievances and then approach this court, if so aggrieved by the decision of the statutory authority. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition i s disposed of with a simple direction to the petitioner to approach the Assam El ectricity Regulatory Commission, if they so desire along with a copy of the writ petition and the order of this court within a month from today and the Regulato ry Commission shall dispose of the said representation within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, if so filed. The respondents herein are also at liberty to submit their replies before the Re gulatory Commission when the Regulatory Commission will decide the representatio n of the petitioner. It is made clear that the Regulatory Commission should give proper hearing to th e parties, if necessary the personal hearing also. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is disposed of.