UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LIMITED vs MS SHRI VEDMATA GAYATRI TRUST

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This writ petition was dismissed for nonprosecution on 19.04.2018. Now a restoration application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant for

recalling the order dated 19.04.2018.

Since the grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient and bona fide, the restoration application is allowed. Order dated 19.04.2018 is hereby

recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

Heard learned counsels for the parties on the merits of the case.

The petitioner before this Court is Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2015 of the

Ombudsman, by which the petitioner has been directed to refund the amount of Rs.13, 24,532/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Five

Hundred Thirty Two Only) along with the interest to the respondent.Â

The respondent which is a trust, namely, M/s Shri Vedmata Gayatri Trust had taken 22 temporary electricity connections. Out of which, 5

connections were for commercial purposes and 17 connections were for domestic purposes, for which the respondent had deposited a total amount of

Rs.32, 55,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Only) as security with the petitioner. The said connections were installed between the

periods 19.09.2011 to 03.11.2011. After the expiry of the temporary connections, the respondent sought refund of the amount which he had deposited

as per Regulation 2.2 (8) of the Supply Code Regulations, 2007. Regulation 2.2 (8) of the Supply Code Regulations, 2007 reads as under:-

“2.2 Procedure for New Connection for Temporary Supply

 (8) On expiry of the temporary connection the consumption security, after adjusting the unpaid dues shall be refunded by the licensee.

Similarly, Material Security shall also be refunded after deducting any damage to material (such as meter, transformer, isolator etc) and dismantling

charges, which shall not be more than 10% of the material security. Refund of these securities shall be made within 15 days from the date of

disconnection failing which an interest as per Regulations 2.3.1 (4) below shall be payable by the licensee.â€​Â

However, since the total amount was not being refunded and only part of the amount was refunded, the respondent went to the Electricity

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum passed an order dated 15.04.2014 directing the

petitioner to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, another order was passed by the petitioner on 09.07.2014. Aggrieved, the

respondent has challenged all these orders before the Ombudsman. The learned Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.13,

24,532/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Two Only) was deducted by the power corporation as “supervision

and contingency chargesâ€, which is not correct. This they had done in view of the circular order of the power corporation dated 30.01.2002.

However, learned Ombudsman came to the conclusion that after 2007, there was no purpose for enforcement of the said circular in view of the

Regulation 6 (4) of the Supply Code Regulations, 2007. Regulation 6 (4) of the Supply Code Regulations, 2007 reads as under:-

 “6. (4) Any terms or conditions of the Distribution Licensee, whether contained in the terms and conditions of supply and/or in any circular,

order, notification or any other document in communication, which are inconsistent with these regulations, shall be deemed to be invalid from the date

on which these Regulations come into force.â€​

Learned Ombudsman came to the conclusion that only such amount can be charged by the power corporation from a consumer as is specifically

given under the said Regulations and the aforesaid charges claimed by the petitioner are inconsistent with the Regulations and therefore invalid.

Consequently, the learned Ombudsman came to the conclusion that since there was no provision under sub-regulation 2.2 (8) of the Supply Code

Regulations, 2007 for charging under the head of “supervision and contingency chargesâ€, the power corporation was not authorized to make a

demand under the aforesaid head and because of this they have to return the amount to the respondent. Learned Ombudsman vide order dated

21.12.2015 had accordingly directed the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.13, 24,532/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Five

Hundred Thirty Two Only) along with the interest at the rate provided for in the Regulations to the respondent. Admittedly, this has not been done by

the petitioner, who has instead challenged this order. I find absolutely no anomaly in the order of the Ombudsman. It is a well-reasoned order. The

writ petition consequently fails and it is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.13,24,532/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Twenty

Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Two Only) along with the interest which is at the rate provided for in the Regulations to the respondent, which

shall be calculated from the date when it ought to have been refunded. As per the Regulations, the refund has to be done within a period of 15 days,

which means that such amount shall be calculated from 25.05.2012. Let the amount be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of

fifteen days from today.