Executive Engineer and Ans by 30zZ0nk



               M/s Hard Chem Agro Industry,
               Village Chattara, Tehsil & Distt. Una (H.P.)
               (through its Prop. Subhash Thakur)
                                                    … Petitioner

       1.      Sr. Executive Engineer (C&W)
               O/O Dy. Chief Engineer (OP) Circle,
               HPSEBL, Una Distt. Una (H.P)

       2.      A.E. Electrical Sub-Division,
               HPSEB Ltd. Mehatpur,
               Distt. Una.
                                                        … Respondents

Petition No. 123 of 2012

(Passed on 31.8.2012)


               for the petitioner :            -None-

               for the respondents:            S. K.L. Gupta
                                                      S.E. (SERC)


       M/s Hard Chem Agro Industry, Village Chattara, Tehsil & Distt. Una
(H.P.) (hereinafter referred as “the petitioner”) has moved this petition seeking
direction to the officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Limited (hereinafter referred as “the respondents”), to rectify the electricity
bill dated 5.4.12 bearing meter A/c No. IA-CT-2LS of the plaintiff for the
month of March, 2012 of Rs. 1,53,996/- waiving the penalty of Rs. 66,209
imposed for over drawal of power.
2.     The petition presented is not in conformity with the provisions of the
Act and the regulations framed thereunder and hence the applicant has been
offered an opportunity to rectify the defects in the petition. The petitioner has
failed to rectify the said defects, pointed out to him, within the period of 3
weeks allowed for this purpose. Despite issuance of notice for hearing, fixed
for today, the petitioner has not put in the appearance.
3.     Apart from this the Apex Court vide its verdict dated 14.8.2007 in
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission V/s Reliance Ltd. Ors
JT 2007 (10) SC 365 has laid down in clear terms that the Electricity
Regulatory Commission cannot adjudicate disputes relating to grievances of
individual consumers. The adjudicatory function of the Commission is thus
limited to the matters prescribed in section (1)(f) of Section 86 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 i.e. to the disputes between the licensee and generating
4.     In another case the Apex Court vide its verdict dated 20.10.2011
delivered in the Executive Engineer and Ans. V/s Sri Seetaram Rice Mill
2011 ELR(SC) 1498, has also laid that the cases of over drawl of power, i.e.
the cases of excess load consumption than the connected load interalia, would
fall under Explanation (b)(iv) to section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The
complete procedure, right from the initiation of proceedings till preferring of
an appeal, against the final order of assessment of charges, payable by any
person under section 126, and termination, thereof, as such it is a complete
code in itself. In such case the petitioner is required to file objections as
contemplated under section 126(3) and when a final order of assessment is
passed the petitioner can prefer a statutory appeal to an appellate authority, as
may be prescribed by the State Government, under section 127 of the Act.
Hence in such cases the Commission does not come into picture.
5.     Keeping in view of the above discussion, the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to entertain this petition and the Commission, therefore, declines
to admit this petition for consideration.
       This petition is dismissed in limine.

                                                             (Subhash C. Negi)


To top