HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
S.C.O. 180, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA. HARYANA-134109

Date of Hearing : 24.5.2002

Date of Order: 16.07.2002

Petition filed by HVPNL seeking review of the order dated 26.02.2002 passed by the Commission in case HERC/PRO-7 of 2001 with respect to the application filed by Sh. Vajinder Singh Malik, General Secretary, HEWO, Gurgaon alongwith application for condonation of delay.

 ORDER

1.     The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in their order dated 26^th February 2002 in case No. HERC/PRO-7 of 2001 in the matter of petition filed by Sh. Vajinder Singh Malik, General Secretary, HEWO Apartments, Sector 15-II, Gurgaon in respect of non-implementation of the Commission order dated 22.5.2001 by the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as DHBVNL) a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited ( hereinafter referred to as HVPNL) ordered the Managing Director of DHBVNL to provide service connection to individual flat owners of HEWO within 15 days after observing all formalities.

2.           HVPNL has filed this review petition under Section 10 (1) (h) of Haryana Electricity Reform Act 1997 read with sections 114 and 151 of the Code of civil procedure 1908 seeking a review of a certain portion the Commission order dated 26.2.2002 in the above case.

3.          The review petition has been filed on 5.4.2002 while the last date for filing the review petition was 28.03.2002. The reasons advanced for delay are pre-occupation of higher authorities of HVPNL and DHBVNL with the session of Haryana Legislative Assembly. HVPNL has applied for condonaiton of delay in filing the review petition.

4.          Although the Commission is not quite convinced of the reasons of delay, the Commission has decided to condone the delay as a special case.

5.           The Licensee submits that in para 3.3 of the order, the Commission have observed that it would be the responsibility of the Licensee to develop theft proof service connection upto the meter and that the cable laid in pipe and / or concreted by the Licensee is the safest mode of laying cable from the point of view of pilferage. Further the Commission have observed that consumers shall not be asked to execute any work forming part of such service connection. The Licensee has submitted that these directions of the Commission will warrant carrying out the work of laying cable / service line while the construction by the housing societies is in early stage. At that time, the prospective consumers will not even have the status of applicant and as such it may not be possible for the Licensee to take up any work. Also dovetailing the work of two agencies i.e. Licensee and the housing society in the same place may compound problems both for the Licensee as well as the residents of the society. In order to give effect to the above decision and to avoid practical problems that may arise at the time of implementation, the Licensee has requested the Commission to lay down detailed guidelines regarding the matter.

6.           The Licensee has also submitted that General Secretary of HEWO society, Gurgaon filed a supplementary affidavit on 8.1.2002 after the date of hearing on 7.1.2002. The Commission didn’t give any opportunity to the Licensee to submit defence while cognizance has been taken of this supplementary affidavit in the decision. The petitioner (HEWO) had filed one inspection report with this affidavit. The Licensee submits that this report was to be considered by the competent authority of the Nigam.  Unless the report is considered and approved by the competent authority of the Nigam, it can not be treated as a document and the petitioner can not derive any benefit out of it by way of filing before the Commission. The Licensee, therefore, submits that references in the order drawn from supplementary submissions should not be taken on record and the order may accordingly be reviewed to this extent.

7.           As regard the first point raised by the petitioner, we would like to state very clearly that the system of approval of the distribution network from the existing available supply point to the meter boxes of the individual flat owners of a Group Housing Society has not been dispensed with by the order of the Commission and it shall continue.

8.            Further the service connection charges as prescribed shall be recoverable from the applicant flat owners / Group Housing Society as in the case of other domestic consumers. We don’t visualize any difficulties in the Licensee taking up the work relating to distribution network from the available point of supply to the meter boxes of the individual flat owners of a Group Housing Society. Of course, this will need close cooperation between the Licensee and the Group Housing Society. We have no doubt that such cooperation will be forthcoming from every Group Housing Society because they would be keenly interested in early completion of the work.

9.           In this connection the Licensee may please refer to condition No. 19 of the Haryana Distribution and Retail Supply Licence (licence No. 2 of 1999) which enjoins on the Licensee the duty of laying the distribution network while providing a connection on application to the owner or occupier of any premises within the area of supply.

10.        As regards the second point raised by the Licensee, we would like to remind the Licensee that on 7.1.2002 during the hearing, the petitioner (HEWO) made oral submissions referred to in para (1.4) and (1.5) of the Commission’s order of 26^th February 2002. The representatives of HVPNL and DHBVNL present at the hearing did not raise any objection to the oral submissions made by the petitioner i.e. Sh. Vajinder Singh Malik, General Secretary, HEWO Apartment, Sector 15-II, Gurgaon. The Commission had during the hearing directed the petitioner  (HEWO) to submit an affidavit in respect of oral submissions made on 7.1.2002. The affidavit submitted to the Commission on 8.1.2002 relates to the submission already made during the hearing on 7.1.2002 against which no objection was made by HVPNL. It will be relevant to mention here that the joint inspection was made at site on 27.7.2001 but even after meetings of HEWO with the Managing Director and the Chairperson of DHBVNL, no reply was given to the petitioner (HEWO) till November 2001 when the petition was filed by the General Secretary of HEWO before the Commission. We consider that this point raised by HVPNL for review of Commission order dated 26.2.2002 has no merit.

11.      In view of foregoing discussion, the review petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 7 & 8 above.

Place: Panchkula
Date: 11.07.2002

1.     In view of the provision of section 9(3) of the Haryana Reform Act, 1997, in regard to paragraph 8 above, I express my difference of opinion as under:-

(a)   The review petition highlights certain practical difficulties, which the Licensee would face, if the orders of the Commission are implemented. There is apparent time gap between the designing, construction and charging of the system laid down by the Group Housing Societies. Once the system is laid and which is underground, the Licensee cannot be sure of the system being theft proof. The cooperation expected in the above views is not rightly conceived.

(b)       We need to appreciate the time frame. At a time when the system is being laid, the houses are not constructed and individual house owner, has not applied for electric connections. Once the system is laid, the Licensee would not have opportunity to check whether the underground system is theft proof. Therefore, the Licensee may design its own distribution network to avoid chances of theft, which will be contrary to our orders. In my opinion, if a Group Housing Society wants to lay its own distribution system, it should preferably take a Single Point Bulk Supply connection or individual house owner should approach the Licensee to release connection like any other domestic consumer.

2.     In view of above, I am of the opinion that Group Housing Societies get their system of electric connection inspected at the time of execution of work for ensuring theft proof system from point of supply to meter box of the individual flat owner of Group Housing Society.

Order

1)           In terms of section 9(3) of Haryana Electricity Reform Act 1997 majority order of Sh. Ramesh Chandra, Chairman and Sh. K.S. Chaube, Member will be the order of the Commission.

2)         The review petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph 7 and 8 of the majority order.

3)        This order is signed dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on 16^th July 2002.

Place: Panchkula
Date: 16.07.2002