Himanshu Kumar Sarkar v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Electricity Act, 2003 ss. 43, 56
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In our view, whatever may be the issues which Reliance Energy might have raised before MERC, vis-a-vis the arrangements made between Reliance Energy and Tata Power Company Limited, a consumer like petitioner should not be dragged into such proceedings. Once the protocol formulated by…
- Para 77. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Judgment
Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Chandurkar with D. J. Kakalia i/b. Mulla & Mulla, C.B. & Caroe, advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Mr. Avweet Lala & Mr. Pallav Shukla i/b. Trilegal, advocates for respondent No.2. Ms. Shilpa Kapil, advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 13th February, 2012. P.C.: The petitioner was a consumer of respondent No.1 – Reliance Infrastructure Limited. He applied for changeover of electricity supply from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 –The Tata Power Company Limited. Admittedly, such switch over is permitted and Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short “MERC”) has also formulated a protocol as per the order dated 15th October, 2009 at Exhibit “B” to the petition. The protocol specifically provides under Clause 12(iv) that in light of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the period for changeover shall not exceed more than 30 days from the date of receipt of completed changeover application by the TPC – D. Since the petitioner had made the application on SSK/ 2 WP/10290.11 13th October, 2011, Tata Power was to make all the necessary arrangements for commencing supply of power to the petitioner by 13th November, 2011. As per the said protocol, Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Tata Power were to go for Joint Meter Reading, but respondent No.1 – Reliance Infrastructure Limited deferred Joint Meter Reading, in view of certain issues, which according to Reliance Infrastructure Limited were required to be sorted out. It is stated that, at present, the proceedings are pending before MERC in relation to such issues. In the meantime, respondent No.1- Reliance Infrastructure Limited has sent a communication dated 16th November, 2011, to the petitioner raising strong objection to Tata Power Company Limited supplying electricity to the petitioner without Joint Meter Reading. The impugned communication states that till Reliance Infrastructure Limited undertakes Joint Meter Reading process for changeover of supply, the petitioner will continue to remain Reliance consumer of electricity and will continue to receive RInfra electricity bills, and that in case of non-payment of such bills, Reliance Energy may invoke provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003,which will lead to disconnection of electricity supply.
#2. The petitioner is naturally aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 16th November, 2011 from Reliance Energy which is annexed at Exhibit “A” to the petition. SSK/
#3. 3 WP/10290.11 Learned counsel for respondent No.1- Reliance Infrastructure Limited, submits that since the matter is pending before MERC, the petitioner should intervene in those proceedings and that this petition should not be entertained.
#4. It appears that respondent No.2 has already started supplying electricity to the petitioner from 14th November, 2011, after the representative of respondent No.2 having done the meter reading in the presence of Notary Public, on account of non-participation of respondent No.1 for Joint Meter Reading.
#5. In our view, whatever may be the issues which Reliance Energy might have raised before MERC, vis-a-vis the arrangements made between Reliance Energy and Tata Power Company Limited, a consumer like petitioner should not be dragged into such proceedings. Once the protocol formulated by MERC permits migration of a consumer from one licensee to another and the consumer has done everything which is required to be done by him, any difference of opinion between the two licensees should not cause any prejudice to the consumer and the consumer should not be threatened with disconnection of electricity supply on the ground of pendency of differences between the two licensees and any proceedings before MERC in that behalf. We, therefore, set-aside the impugned SSK/ 4 WP/10290.11 communication dated 16th November, 2011 from respondent No1-Reliance Energy to the petitioner and direct that any difference of opinions between respondent No.1- Reliance Energy and respondent No.2-Tata Power Corporation Limited shall not be used as a ground for disconnection of electricity supply to a consumer like the petitioner in whose favour the electricity is now being supplied by respondent No.2.
#6. It is clarified that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the differences between Reliance Energy and Tata Power Company Limited, and all the contentions of the parties before MERC are kept open.
#7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — ss. 43, 56.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Feb 2012. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.