Steps to Address Arbitrary Charges in Utilities

​In a legal dispute between M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited and Transmission Corporation, the court addressed the issue of “development charges” levied by electricity distribution companies for new connections and additional power loads.

Simplified Article: M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited Vs Transmission Corporation

In this case, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited, and others, declaring that the demand for notional development charges by the Distribution Companies for new electricity connections and additional loads was arbitrary and illegal. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

What the Petitioners Argued:

• The Distribution Companies had no right to demand development charges for additional electricity loads beyond 1500 KVA.
• This action violated Sections 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the rules set by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in 2004.
• The A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission was wrong in removing some rules (Clauses 5 to 11) that previously exempted them from these charges. These changes were made:
  • Without proper notice to the affected parties.
  • Without following legal procedures required under Sections 181 and 182 of the Act.
• The petitioners asked the court to:
  • Declare the demand illegal.
  • Stop the Distribution Companies from collecting these charges.

What the Respondents Defended:

• They argued that Clause 14 of the 2004 regulations allowed the Commission to make changes like removing Clauses 5 to 11.
• The changes were necessary to manage high costs and ensure fairness among applicants.
• The review process used to remove the clauses was allowed under Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
• They claimed the petitioners should have used the appeal process under Section 111 of the Act instead of filing writ petitions.

What the Court Decided:

• The Electricity Commission could review its decisions under Section 94 of the Act but did not have the authority to delete parts of the regulations.
• Deleting Clauses 5 to 11 was done illegally because:
  • Affected parties were not given notice.
  • The changes were not published or presented to the State Legislature, as required by law.
• Subordinate legislation (rules by an authority) cannot have a retrospective effect. This means the changes could not be applied to actions or demands already made.
• The court declared the demand for development charges illegal and emphasized that it was unreasonable and discriminatory.

The writ petitions were allowed, and the demand for notional development charges was struck down.

​Petitioners’ Arguments:

• Unjustified Charges: The petitioners argued that the distribution companies were unjustly demanding development charges for additional power loads exceeding 1500 KVA.

• They contended that this practice violated Sections 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Regulation 3 of the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licensees’ Duty for Supply of Electricity on Request) Regulation, 2004, especially after certain clauses were removed.​

• Improper Deletion of Clauses: They claimed that the Commission lacked the authority to delete specific clauses without proper notice to affected parties and without following the procedures outlined in Sections 181 and 182 of the Act.​

• Arbitrary Demands: The petitioners asserted that the development charges were arbitrary and illegal, seeking a court declaration to prevent the respondents from collecting these charges.​

Respondents’ Defense:

• Authority to Amend Regulations: The respondents argued that Clause 14 of Regulation 3 of 2004 empowered the Commission to amend or delete any regulation provisions.

• They justified the deletion due to significant expenses incurred by distribution companies and to eliminate discrimination among applicants.​

• Review Powers: They maintained that under Section 94 of the Act, the Commission had the authority to review its decisions, making the review petitions filed by the distribution companies valid.​

• Procedural Compliance: The respondents claimed that the deletion was conducted according to rules and justified under Section 185(3) of the Act.

• They also suggested that the petitioners should have appealed under Section 111 of the Act instead of filing writ petitions.​

Court’s Conclusions:

• Limited Review Authority: The court determined that while the Commission could review its decisions under Section 94, this power did not extend to deleting regulation clauses.​

• Procedural Missteps: The deletion of clauses was not executed lawfully. Affected parties were not properly notified, and the mandated procedures in Sections 181 and 182 of the Act were not followed.​

• Illegality of Retrospective Application: The court found that applying the deletion retrospectively was illegal, as subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect.​

• Arbitrary Charges: Consequently, the court declared the demand for development charges based on the deleted clauses arbitrary and illegal.​

Outcome:

The court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the demand for notional development charges for new connections and additional loads as arbitrary and illegal.

1. Understanding Consumer Rights Under the Electricity Act, 2003 A detailed guide on consumer entitlements and how to address disputes with electricity providers.
2. Impact of Regulatory Changes on Business Operations How amendments to laws or regulations, such as the one in M/s. Jairaj Ispat Limited vs. Transmission Corporation, influence industries and consumers.
3. The Role of Courts in Addressing Regulatory Overreach Analyzing how the judiciary ensures laws and regulations are enforced fairly and legally.
4. The Importance of Fair Practices in the Energy Sector A look at why transparent and reasonable practices matter for both companies and consumers.
5. Steps to Address Arbitrary Charges in Utilities A practical guide for individuals or businesses dealing with disputes over development charges or other fees.

Would you like me to draft an article on one of these, or something else entirely? Contact Legal Light consulting – LLC Lawyer for your legal need

​This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer.