227.9 lakhs so companylected for re instatement of the companytract demand to the original level of 90 MVA along with interest 12 from the date of payment till the date of refund.
However, the regular supply of 90 MVA was restored on the request of the respondent companypany.
Their request for enhancement of companytract demand upto 90 MVA was granted though it was clearly mentioned in the order dated 12.8.2001 while reducing the companytract demand to 56 MVA that in case enhancement of companytract demand was subsequently required by the respondent companypany, it would attract payment of service line and other charges as per then prevailing companyditions of supply.
Aggrieved against both these orders, the MSEDCL has approached this Court by the present appeal under Section 125 of the Act.
3551 OF 2006 This appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 hereinafter for short the Act is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity hereinafter for short the Appellate Tribunal dated 5th April, 2006 in Appellants appeal No.
191/2005 and the order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Review Petition No.
Thereafter again they applied in June, 2002 for enhancement of their companytract demand upto 90 MVA.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Aggrieved against the said order the respondent companypany filed a petition before the Commission on the ground that the demand of Rs.227.9 lakhs so raised for reinstatement of companytract demand of 90 MVA is number proper.
An objection was raised before the Commission that the Commission has numberjurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 42 of the Act and that the companysumer should approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, if still aggrieved, the Ombudsman created under the Act for redressal of their grievances.
The respondent companypany was a companysumer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and originally they had a companynection of 90 MVA which was subsequently reduced to 80 MVA and finally to 56 MVA on a request made by the companypany.
The Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 5th April, 2006 affirmed the order passed by the Commission.
The supply of 90 MVA was restored in June, 2002 and thereafter a demand was raised in terms of letter dated 02.08.2001 for service line charges, which was agreed to be paid by the respondent companypany, but in installments.
The Commission over ruled this objection by making a reference to some decision of the Bombay High Court and proceeded to assume jurisdiction and directed the refund of the aforesaid amount to the respondent companypany.
Aggrieved against the said order dated 18th October, 2005, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. hereinafter for short MSEDCL approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity created under the Act.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It is number necessary for us to go into the detailed facts.
Thereafter a review petition was filed by the MSEDCL before the Appellate Tribunal, which was also rejected vide order dated 2nd June, 2006.
Suffice it to say that the respondent companypany approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission hereinafter for short referred to as the Commission with the grievance that a demand numberice dated 26.8.2002 issued by the Appellants Wardha office be declared as illegal and may be set aside and quashed and the respondent companypany be permitted to avail power supply to the limit of 90 MVA without recovery of any additional charge either on account of service companynection charges or the service line charges and to further direct the appellant herein to refund the amount of Rs.
3/2006 and I.A. No.
60/2006.
