Supreme Court Upholds APTEL Order Holding That 'Reliability Charges' Cannot Be Imposed On JSW Steel Ltd.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal of Electricity (APTEL) which held that Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. was not entitled to impose a reliability charge on JSW Steel Ltd.
The Court held thus while observing that the large consumers like the steel company were subjected to higher tariffs than consumers on non-express feeders.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the Company which was aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order imposing reliability charges.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal held that the 1st respondent had already been subjected to higher tariffs than consumers on non-express feeders. Thus, the appellant has already been compensated for providing continuous supply to the industries like the 1st respondent…..We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal that the appellant was not entitled to impose a reliability charge on customers like the 1st respondent.”
Brief Facts-
In the present case, an appeal was preferred by the appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., a distribution licensee which is company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Appeal was concerning the legality of a reliability charge imposed by it on respondent M/s JSW Steel Ltd. & Anr. The charge was initially imposed, then discontinued, by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission. After a public hearing on the petition of the appellant the commission imposed a reliability charge. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. a steel industry, which is a significant electricity consumer, aggrieved by the said order appealed before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity which set aside the decision of the commission.
The Court noted that under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 a statutory appeal is provided against an order of the Commission. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to challenge the legality of the impugned order of the Commission. According to the Court, nothing in the 2003 Act suggests that a consumer who does not participate in the Commission's public hearing and is aggrieved by an order of the Commission is disentitled to prefer an appeal.
According to the Court, it is an admitted position that the steel company is a continuous process industry on express feeder, paid a higher tariff during the relevant period to enable it to get supply without load-shedding.
Accordingly, the Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. M/s JSW Steel Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 442)
