HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SCO 180, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA - 134 109, HARYANA

 CASE NO. HERC/PRO – 2 OF 2004

 Date of Hearing: 31.08.2004

 Date of Order: 18.10.2004

In the matter of petition filed by M/s Seth Brothers, Circular Road, Ambala City in respect of illegal recovery of service connection charges amounting to Rs. 92,250.00 against Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL); a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) -- the Licensee for Distribution & Retail Supply Business of electricity in Haryana.

 ORDER

This petition has been filed by M/s Seth Brothers, Circular Road, Ambala City, having Account No. LS – I, seeking immediate refund of illegal Service Connection Charges, amounting to Rs. 92,250.00, levied & collected by Sub - Divisional Officer (OP), West Sub Division, Ambala City of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL); a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) -- the Licensee for Distribution & Retail Supply Business of electricity in Haryana.

1       The petitioner has stated that:

1.1        Vide Sales Circular No. 7/99 dated 27.09.1999; UHBVNL floated Voluntary Disclosure Scheme 1999 for all categories of consumers to declare their unauthorized loads. The scheme was operative from 05.10.1999 to 30.11.1999. Vide Sales Circular No. 10/99 dated 12.10.1999 UHBVNL clarified that no Service Connection Charges will be payable in case of industrial consumer if the existing system permits the connection of additional loads.

1.2       In pursuance of the scheme floated by UHBVNL, he declared (raised) his Connected Load from 307.966 KW to 446.379 KW and Contract Demand from 373 KVA to 446 KVA well within the period prescribed. On scrutiny of the application he was asked to deposit the Additional Security (Advance Consumption Deposit) and also Service Connection Charges. The illegal demand of Service Connection Charges was protested in view of Sales Circular No. 10/99 as the existing system was capable of carrying the additional load and the respondents did not require any extra material. He had to deposit the Service Connection Charges as the amount was raised through sundry.

1.3       The matter was pursued by way of representations dated 29.01.2002, 28.04.2002, 10.07.2002 & 04.09.2002 including the visits to the offices of the respondents.

1.4       Vide memo No. 2024 dated 20.09.2002, SDO (Operation) West Sub-Division; Ambala City referred the case (of the petitioner) to the Executive Engineer Operation Division, Ambala City.

1.5        Representations dated 07.01.2003 and 21.04.2003 were made to the Executive Engineer as no reply was received from Executive Engineer/ SDO.

1.6       Vide memo No. 137 dated 08.07.2003 Executive Engineer informed that Service Connection Charges had been levied in terms of Sales Circular No. 11/99 dated 29.11.99.

1.7        It was strange to note that UHBVN issued Sales Circular No. 11/99 dated 29.11.99 at the fag end (of the scheme), modifying the scheme & applying it with retrospective effect even in those cases who had already availed all benefits of the scheme. The application of the Sales Circular No. 11/99, in his case, would be totally illegal and arbitrary as everything was over before the issue of the ibid circular.

1.8        Respondents, under the V.D.S. Scheme, had invited the applications for disclosure of unauthorized load with certain conditions and concessions attached to it. After the consumer had come forward, the terms of the scheme cannot be changed, that too retrospectively to the detriment of the consumer who had come forward, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the scheme. The consumer cannot be asked to pay even a penny more than what was required to be paid in terms of the scheme at the relevant time.

2.          The respondents stated, in seriatim, that: -

2.1        Voluntary Disclosure Scheme 1999, vide Sales Circular No. 7/99 dated 27.09.1999, for all categories of consumers to declare their unauthorized loads, to be operative from 05.10.1999 to 30.11.1999 was floated. However Sales Circular Nos. 7/99 & 10/99 were modified with Sales Circular No.11/99 dated 29.11.99 wherein it was clearly stated that Service Connection Charges shall be charged from those consumers who have availed the said scheme as per the Circulars in force. Moreover, the Nigam issued these Sales Circulars before the 1^st tariff order dated 22.12.2000 issued by the Commission. Hence, these were in the preview of the Nigam.

2.2         Admitted to the extent that the petitioner was required to deposit Advance Consumption Deposit at the time of declaration, as per Sales Circular No.7/99 & 10/99. The petitioner deposited the same on 12.11.99. In view of the Sales Circular No.11/99 dated 29.11.99, the Service Connection Charges were charged through sundry item No. 2/14 dated 15.1.2000 & asked the petitioner, through monthly bill for January 2000, to deposit the same. The petitioner deposited the same vide RO - 4 No. 23/28560 dated 27.1.2000. It is a fact that no extra material was required as existing system was capable of taking extended load.  

2.3        Petitioner visited the office of S.D.O. (Op) West for refund of Service Connection Charges. The petitioner was satisfied with explanation given by the office. Copy of Sales Circular No.11/99 was supplied to the petitioner. SDO (OP) West Sub Div. Ambala City, vide his office memo No. 2024/T-SC dated 20.9.2002, also informed the petitioner that Service Connection Charges were applicable on extended load even under VDS Scheme and amount was not refundable.

2.4        Admitted that SDO (OP) West Sub Div. Ambala City, vide his office memo No. 2024/T-SC dated 20.9.2002, referred the petitioner’s case to the concerned Executive Engineer.  

2.5        Denied. SDO (OP) West Sub Div. Ambala City informed the petitioner, during his visits as well as in writing, vide his office memo No.2024/T-SC dated 20.9.2002, that Service Connection Charges were applicable on extended load and amount was not refundable.

2.6       Admitted.

2.7        Sales Circular No.11/99 dated 29.11.99 was issued while Sales Circular Nos. 7/99 & 10/99, relating to Voluntary Disclosure Scheme 1999, were still in operation. The inadvertent omission in Sales Circular Nos. 7/99 & 10/99 was rectified through Sales Circular No.11/99 dated 29.11.99. Service Connection Charges are recoverable in the normal course when the consumer seeks load extension as the Service Connection Charges are levied to meet the cost of maintaining infrastructure for additional loads including back up infrastructure on transmission and generation. Hence Service Connection Charges recovered in the present case are well within the ambit of these Sales Circulars. It is further added that had the staff/vigilance cell of the respondents found the petitioner with extended load, in normal course of checking, the petitioner would have paid penalty, in addition to the payment on a/c of Service Connection Charges & Advance Consumption Deposit due to unauthorized extension of load.

3.             Commission’s view and order

After going through the record and hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents on 31.08.2004, the Commission observes as under: -

3.1         Petitioner’s contention, of having been asked to deposit Service Connection Charges at the time of scrutiny of his application (for regularization of load) is wrong as the amount was raised later on by way of sundry item.

3.2        Service Connection Charges are levied to meet the cost of providing infrastructure including back up infrastructure on transmission and generation. The petitioner had been unauthorizedly using the infrastructure (to the extent of additional load) even prior to the ibid Voluntary Disclosure Scheme without paying the legitimate charges to the respondents. As the cost have already been incurred (by the respondents) in laying the infrastructure to the extent of over-capacity, the respondents have rightly charged the Service Connection Charges by amending Sales Circular No. 7/99 & 10/99 to correct their (UHBVNL’s) inadvertent omission.

In view of the above, the petition is hereby dismissed.

This order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on18.10.2004.

Dated: 18.10.2004
Place: Panchkula