Download OmbOrd_2009_02_03_RNo_03_of_2009.pdf

Contents : BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN (Appointed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act 2003) 606 KESHAVA Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051 Tel. / Telefax: 022-2659 2965 ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 03 of 2009 In the matter of Application for Review of Representation No. 85 of 2008 Shri Deviprasad R. Dubey Appellant V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd . Respondent Present: 1. 2. Shri W.G.Gorde Electricity Ombudsman Shri S. N. Yadwad Secretary On behalf of the Appellant: 1. 2. Shri D. R. Dubey Self Shri B. R. Mantri Representative On behalf of the Respondent: 1. 2. 3. Shri B. R. Karande Executive Engineer Shri G. T. Pachpohe Dy. Executive Engineer Shri C. S. Sakpal L.D.C. ORDER Date: 3rd February 2009 Shri Deviprasad R. Dubey resident of Kalyan has filed this review application on 9th January 2009 and the same is registered at Serial No. 3 of 2009. Mr. Dubey who was the Appellant in the Representation No. 85 of 2008 has sought this review in terms of the provisions under Regulation 19 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2006 (for brevity the CGRF Regulations). The Appellant has raised the following points for consideration in relation to his review application: 2. Appellant submits that he is not a partner of M/s. Bhagyodaya Construction and only site activities were supervised by him for which he would get the premises of shop no. 3 at a concessional rate from Bhagyodaya construction. Even before starting the construction work he decided to purchase the said shop from Bhagyodaya construction after completing the building work to start the flour mill for which he obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC). Page 1 of 4 03 of 2009 The Appellant has cited the case of M/s. Omkar Industry (Representation No. 11 of 2006 and that of M/s. Arviyas Shoes (Representation No. 17 of 2008) to make his point. It is contended that his case is similar to the cases based on which recovery of arrears against the Appellant in respect of the earlier 3 phase connection should be treated as time barred. With this submission he has prayed for review of the order dated 16th December 2008 passed on his Representation No. 85 of 2008. 3. Executive Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd the Respondent in this case filed his written statement of defence on 19th January 2009. It is contended that the Appellant s review petition is not maintainable as there is no discovery of new facts or documents touching the aforesaid review petition. Respondent did not comment on the cases cited by the Appellant in support of his point on the ground of absence of copies of the orders and each case has different facts and hence should not be generalized to apply in the present case. As regards the old arrears against the Appellant the Respondent submitted that under the law old arrears are considered as charge on the property in which new electricity connection is sought. Respondent cited the provision of Regulation 10.5 of the Supply Code Regulations in this behalf. Under these circumstances the Respondent states that the arrears payable by the Appellant in respect of the earlier connection is now a liability of the Appellant and should be paid before the electric supply is extended to his premises at shop no. 3 for flour mill. The Respondent prayed for rejection of the review petition. 4. The matter was heard on 30th January 2009. Mr. Deviprasad R. Dubey the Appellant assisted by Shri B.R.Mantri his representative was present. Shri B.R. Karande Executive Engineer assisted by Shri G.T.Pachpohe Dy.Executive Engineer and Shri C.S.Sakpal L.D.C. represented the Respondent. Shri Mantri while arguing for the Appellant reiterated his stand that the dues against the Appellant s earlier connection are certainly time barred and the same would not stand in the Court of Law. Therefore the Respondent should not be entitled to recover old arrears from the Appellant while granting the electric supply to his flour mill. It was brought to his notice that this point was already raised and agitated during the process of representation. Mr. Mantri then argued that if at all the arrears are payable the same should be recovered from all 64 consumers in the building to whom electricity connections have been extended by the Respondent. At this point Shri Mantri was asked to make his stand clear as to whether he is still disputing the liability in terms of Section 56(2). Mr. Mantri then agreed that his earlier stand should be again looked into and justice should be given. 5. Mr. Karande submitted that the Appellant has not been able to show any error or mistake on the facts

INFO HASH : 91f47f941193c9324c9ef2d59cab00a7c2c09ee9

Download now

File Size: 34.1 kb