High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. B D Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the ASEB, who have a pplied for vacating the Court’s interim order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure-A) Also heard Mr. G N Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party/writ petitioner. 2. The petitioner firm operates an industry manufacturing M.S. Billets and M.S. Ingots in its factory located at the Integrated Infrastructure Development Center (IIDC), Rangia, Maranjana. As a power intensive industry, the petitioner requires 10 Mega Watt (MW) power (equivalent to 10000 KVA). For meeting their po wer requirements, an agreement dated 2.2.2011 was signed between the ASEB and th e petitioner and according to Clause-26 of the agreement, the purchaser agreed t o bear the estimated cost to draw power at 132 KVA as per Clause 2.2 of the Supp ly Code Regulation of the AERC. Earlier 10 MW load was sanctioned on 10.3.2009 t o the petitioner’s industry and it was made clear in the sanction order itself t hat all statutory requirements as applicable to a consumer under Section 2(15) o f the Electricity Act, 2003 will apply. 3. The industry is currently functioning with electricity supplied from the 33 KV Line and the petitioner in his writ petition challenged the provisional e stimate for construction of the 132 KV Line from Rangia to IIDC, Maranjana, incl uding ancillary cost for supply of power through high tension ( H.T) line to the petitioner’s industry.

4. Mr. G N Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel contends that the estimate d cost of Rs.4,87,98,500/- is too steep for a single consumer to bear and he sub mits that there is scope for reduction of the estimate, if IIDC agrees to share the cost for drawing power from the 132 KV Line. The counsel refers to the minut es written on 18.11.2008 amongst the ASEB officials which visualized that the co nsumer will move into the 132 KV System once it is made available in the vicinit y of the factory premises and accordingly he argues that the petitioner should n ot be forced to draw electricity through high tension line from the 132 KV Syste m located at a distance of about 7 K.M. 5. Per-contra Mr. B D Das, learned senior counsel submits that when the ind ustry was set up at Maranjana, Rangia, the petitioners were aware that the 132 K V Line is at some distance from the petitioner’s factory and yet they entered in to the agreement dated 2.2.2011 for bearing the estimated cost for receiving ele ctric supply from the 132 KV Line. Since this agreement was voluntarily entered into by the consumer with their eyes wide open, Mr. Das argues that that petitio ners can’t now refuse to bear the cost, for drawing power from the 132 KV Power Line. 6. The learned senior counsel for the ASEB refers to Clause 2.2 of the Assa m Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulation, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulation’) and also Clause 3 .3 thereof to project that, for consumers drawing powers above 500 KVA, prescrib ed mode of supply volts is only from 132 KV Line and accordingly the consumer ca n’t object to drawing power from the available 132 KV Line even it is located at some distance from the factory. However Mr. Sahewalla in response, refers to pr oviso to Clause 2.2 of the Regulation to contend that the licensee can supply el ectricity at its discretion at volts other than what is specified under Clause 2 .2 of the Regulation. The drawal of power form a regular 33 KV line which is also serving othe 7. r consumers definitely affects the general consumers. Therefore, conditions are laid to meet the higher power needs of certain categories of consumers. While it is incumbent under the Regulation for a high volume consumer like the petitione r with power demand of 10MW to receive electricity supply only from the 132 KV L ine and there is a corresponding obligation of the consumer to deposit the cost for raising the infrastructure for providing power from the 132 KV Line, the pro visional estimate intimated to the consumer on 2.9.2011 appears to be burdensome particularly when, the solitary consumer is required to bear construction cost for bay and terminal blocks including line and jirath compensation, for drawing electricity from 7 kilometer distance, from the nearest 132 KV Line. The possibi lity of sharing of cost by others including the IIDC was not taken into account while estimated cost was intimated to the consumers. 8. In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to give a representation f or reduction of the provisional estimate and the said representation of the peti tioner is directed to be considered on merit by either the Managing Director of the Chairman of the Assam Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (APDCL), Lower Ass am Zone. But it is made clear that the obligation of the consumer to bear the co st in accordance with Clause 26 of the agreement dated 2.2.2011 is not being dis turbed. While re-working the cost to be borne by the consumer, the competent aut hority will take note of the obligation if any of the IIDC and others to share t he cost and proportionate cost reduction should then be considered as per applic able norms. Mr. Sahewalla assures that the consumer will give representation for a revised estimate within 4 weeks from today.

9. Once the estimate is re-worked, after consideration of the petitioners’ representation and other relevant aspects, the consumer shall deposit the estima ted cost to the APDCL authorities. The current arrangement for supply of electri city to the petitioner’s factory will continue until the APDCL re-works the esti mate and arrange to supply power from the 132 KV Line, after realization of the estimated cost. 10. ordingly disposed. The interim order stands modified to the above extent. Misc. Case is acc