The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi has held that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was entitled to collect Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges from H.T. Industrial and Commercial Consumers during evening peak hours for the quota fixed prospectively and not with retrospective effect.
The Tribunal, comprising Chairperson Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Technical Member Rakesh Nath and Judicial Member Justice P.S. Datta, in a recent order held that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission had powers to issue a direction or to grant permission to the Electricity Board for enforcing Restrictions and Control Measures and for levying Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges in case of any violation by the consumers. The Board imposed 40 per cent power cut from November 1, 2008 and approached the State Commission seeking regulatory measures.
The Commission, by an order dated November 28, 2008, directed the Board to collect the Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges at three times the normal rate from both HT Industrial and Commercial Consumers from the date of this order.
The appeals before the Tribunal were directed against this order. Disposing the appeals, the Tribunal pointed out that the State Commission had imposed these restrictions and control measures only in the light of the existing acute shortage of power and in order to have equitable distribution of available powers among the general public as proposed by the Electricity Board on the basis of the direction given by the State government.
“Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that neither the State Commission nor the Electricity Board has such power to direct or to collect Excess Demand Charges and Excess Energy Charges.”
It said “the excess demand charges and excess energy charges for evening peak restriction has to be given effect to only from May 4, 2010, the date of the Impugned Order wherein the position was clearly stated and not from November 28, 2008 when the first order was passed.”
The Tribunal, while disposing of a batch of appeals, directed the State Commission to pass consequential order in terms of this judgment. It said the amount so far paid by the Appellants to the Board during the pendency of these Appeals should be adjusted in future bills.
