Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 39

Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION


World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005

Tel. No. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 022 22163976


E-mail mercindia@mercindia.org.in
Website: www.mercindia.org.in
Case No. 70 of 2005
In the matter of

Approval of MSEDCL Schedule of charges

ORDER
Dated: September 8, 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

Approval of MSEDCL Schedule of charges


Table of Contents
Sr. No.

Description

Page No.

SECTION-I
1
2
3

Preface
Background
Regulatory Process

1
2
3

SECTION-II

5
6

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED


DURING PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMISSIONS
RULING
Service Connection Charges
Service connection charges for overhead LT supply
Service connection charges for overhead HT supply
Service connection charges for underground LT supply
Service connection charges for underground HT supply
Cost of meter & meter box
Service Line Charges
Miscellaneous & General Charges
Installation testing fee
Reconnection Charges
Changing location of meters within the same premises
Testing of meters
Replacement of meter cards for HT consumers
Penalty for cheque bouncing
Temporary meters/hiring of meter charges
Penalty for Harmonics variation above normal limits
Hiring charges for CT/PT unit, CT metering cabinet,
HT metering cabinet, Transformers & capacitors;
Testing of LT CTs, transformers, CT/PT units, relays,
switchgears, transformer oil and LT & HT capacitors;
Charges for standby transformer
Application registration and processing charges

4
4
8
9
9
10
11
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
21

23

Sr. No.

Description

Page No.

SECTION-III

11
12

COMMISSIONS ANALYSIS, TARIFF


PHILOSOPHY AND DECISION ON ITEMWISE
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
Service Connection Charges
Service connection charges for overhead LT supply
Service connection charges for overhead HT supply
Service connection charges for underground LT supply
Service connection charges for underground HT supply
Cost of meter & meter box
Service Line Charges
Miscellaneous & General Charges
Installation testing fee
Reconnection Charges
Changing location of meters within the same premises
Testing of meters
Replacement of meter cards for HT consumers
Penalty for cheque bouncing
Temporary meters/hiring of meter charges
Penalty for Harmonics variation above normal limits
Hiring charges for CT/PT unit, CT metering cabinet,
HT metering cabinet, Transformers & capacitors;
Testing of LT CTs, transformers, CT/PT units, relays,
switchgears, transformer oil and LT & HT capacitors;
Charges for standby transformer
Application registration and processing charges
Applicability and Validity

13

Appendix-I

9
10

24
24
26
26
27
27
27
29
29
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32

32
33
34

ANNEXURE
Annexure
No.
1
2
3
4
5

Description
Service Connection Charges for new Overhead
connection
Service connection charges for new Underground
connection
Cost of Meter and Meter Box
Miscellaneous and General charges
Application Registration & Processing charges

Page
No.
36
37
38
39
40

Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION


World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005

Tel. No. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 022 22163976


E-mail mercindia@mercindia.org.in
Website: www.mercindia.org.in
Case No. 70 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF

Approval of MSEDCLs Schedule of Charges


Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairman
Shri A. Velayutham, Member
Shri S. B. Kulkarni, Member

ORDER
Dated: September 8, 2006
Preface:
Presently, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) is
recovering various charges from the consumers for the services, besides supply,
provided to them as per the MSEBs Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for
Supply of Electrical Energy. Most of these charges are in force since July 1999,
except Service Line Charges, which are in force since 1991.
Till the enactment of Electricity Act (EA), 2003, MSEB was a vertically integrated
electricity board, having activities of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
electricity in the State of Maharashtra, formed under the provisions of Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948.
The Government of Maharashtra notified the Provisional Transfer Scheme under
Section 131 (5) (g) of the EA, 2003, on 6th June 2005, under which the four successor
Companies of the erstwhile MSEB, including MSEDCL, the distribution arm, were
formed. The MSEDCL has been registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
on 31st May 2005 bearing certificate U40109 MH 2005 PLC 153645 under the
Companies Act, 1956.
Section 50 of EA, 2003 provides that the State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the Commission shall specify an Electricity Supply Code to
be adhered to by the Distribution Licensee in the State. Accordingly, the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has issued Electricity Supply Code and
Other Conditions of Supply Regulations, 2005 effective from January 20, 2005.

Page 1 of 40

As per Regulation No. 18 of the Supply Code Regulations, the distribution licensees
are required to file with the Commission for approval, a Schedule of Charges for
such matters required by the distribution licensee to fulfill its obligation to supply
electricity to consumers under the Act and other relevant Regulations.
Accordingly, MSEDCL
submitted the Schedule of Charges payable by its
consumers vide letter dated 2nd April 2005, and subsequently by their letter dated
15th June 2005, the Terms & Conditions of Supply, for the approval of the
Commission.
The Commission in exercise of the power vested in it under the provisions of MERC
(Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 and all
other powers enabling it in this behalf, and after taking in to consideration, all the
submissions made by MSEDCL, all the objections and issues raised during public
hearing, the responses of MSEDCL, and all other relevant material, hereby
determines the Schedule of Charges for various services provided by MSEDCL.

I: Background and Process


1.1 MSEDCLs Proposal:
MSEDCL has proposed that, the existing charges categorized in three broad
categories, namely, (a) Service Connection Charges, (b) Service Line Charges and (c)
Miscellaneous and other Charges are to be continued.
They have given the proposed charges on the following assumptions:
a) The proposed Schedule of Charges is worked out on cost plus basis.
b) For working out the Service Connection Charges, the cost data referred is as per
actual CPA (Central Purchase Agency) rates and has been compared with the
retail rates.
c) Cross-subsidization is not resorted to (except in isolated cases).
d) For working out the Service Line Charges the costing of the works required for
release of supply is worked out on average basis.
e) A uniform rate per kW is arrived at and this rate is taken on average pro-rata
basis.
f) The rate per kW remains the same for Urban and Rural areas.
g) Due weightage is given to practical usage of electricity in Urban areas, rural areas
and kaccha / pukka premises also (pukka with RCC Slabs / roofs).
h) Proposed recovery of Service Line Charges in respect of Agricultural
Connections are based on the actual cost.
i) The Service Line Charges are worked out considering the network /Infrastructure
requirements of 22 / 11 KV downwards.
j) Since the cost of infrastructure is worked out on average basis, a major
rationalization has been carried out in the different categories of erstwhile Service
Line Charges.
k) The miscellaneous and general charges are worked out on notional basis.

Page 2 of 40

1.2 Regulatory Process:


On receipt of the proposal, after due scrutiny, the Commission in line with regulation
18 of Supply Code decided to invite public comment/suggestions on the draft
Schedule of Charges. Accordingly, a public notice dated 23rd January 2006 inviting
suggestions and objections from interested parties was published in Asian age,
Business Standard, The Free Press Journal, Economic Times & Maharashtra Times in
Mumbai; Indian Express, Dainik Samna, Loksatta, Sakal, Navakal, Lokmat,
Navbharat & Ratnagiri Times in all editions of Maharashtra on 25 th January 2006.
MSEDCL was also advised to make available copies of MSEDCLs petition, for
inspection and acquiring to the members of public at MSEDCLs office and also host
the same on MSEDCLs web site (www.mahadiscom.in). The last date of filing
written objection was fixed as 23 rd February 2006, which allowed a period of one
month to the public to enable them to file their objections.
The Commission received 42(forty two) written objections/comments regarding
proposed Schedule of Charges submitted by MSEDCL. The Commission also
admitted objections filed during the Public hearing, which was held on 28th February
2006 in Mumbai. List of Objectors to the MSEDCLs proposal on Schedule of
Charges is annexed at Appendix-I. Based on the various objections received and
proceedings during Public Hearing, the Commission directed MSEDCL to submit
their response within 15(fifteen) days. MSEDCL finally submitted their response on
10th April 2006, interalia, revising rate schedules of certain items based on
objections/suggestions received during public hearing.
The Commission has ensured that the due process contemplated under law to ensure
transparency and public participation, has been followed at every stage meticulously
and an adequate opportunity was given to all the persons concerned to file their say in
the matter.
The Commission after taking into consideration all the objections, including the
submissions and responses of MSEDCL, issues raised during the Public Hearing and
all other relevant material, issues the order as per following structure having three
sections.
Section I covers Preface, Background and Regulatory Process.
Section II is covering

MSEDCLs proposal, dealt itemwise

Under each item the objections received


MSEDCLs response to such objections

The Commissions ruling on each item.


Section III is covering

Commissions Analysis and Tariff Philosophy towards


determination of itemwise charges

Applicability and Validity.


Page 3 of 40

II - Item-wise, proposal of MSEDCL, summary of objections received, response


filed by MSEDCL and the Commissions ruling is as under:

Item: Service Connection Charges


1)

Service Connection Charges for overhead LT Supply.

1.1
MSEDCLs Proposal
1.1.1 The proposed Service Connection Charges are enclosed at annexures to the
proposal dated 2nd April 2005.
1.1.2 In the proposed charges, the fixed length of service wire is 30 (thirty) metres
and variable charges are proposed to be made applicable only up to further
15(fifteen) metres.
1.1.3 The Service Connection Charges are worked out at actuals based on
CPA (Central Purchase Agency) rates for various components. However, it is
proposed to continue with the existing Service Connection Charges for loads
up to 0.5 kW & for HT consumers.
An option is proposed to be given to the consumers to procure the required material
and make payment of only 10% of normative service connection charges to the
MSEDCL towards overall supervision and connection release charges.
Proposed charges for abovesaid purpose by MSEDCL are indicated in Annexure 1.
1.2 Objections
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) mainly objected to the escalated rates of the
materials required for releasing new connections. According to MGP the charges
should have been at CPA rates & not at retail prices, which according to them are
higher than CPA by about 30 % to 50 %. They have further commented that this kind
of higher charges would discourage the consumers from paying for the material &
instead they may choose to buy it from the market on their own. In this process the
efficiency of the Distribution network may get affected resulting in higher T & D/
System losses.
They have further stated that variable charges should not be based on cost of 30
metres of cable & other material; instead it should be on actual materials required.
They have also said that the charges should be at CPA rates plus direct charges of
5%. This suggestion, according to them if accepted by the licensee, would generate
more revenue by way of reduction in energy loss and thereby through the charges
(additional sales) collected from the consumers.
Vidarbha Industries Association (VIA) has strongly opposed levying of Service
Connection Charges on the ground that when the licensee has separately proposed
various charges under different heads i.e. Service Line Charges, Application
processing charges, Cost of Meter, supervision charges etc., then there is no
justification of collecting service connection charges from the consumer. During
public hearing Shri R. B. Goenka suggested that service wire upto the length of 30
metres should be provided free of cost.
Page 4 of 40

Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sanghatana in principle has no objection to the


levying of Service Connection Charge, but their objection is for the proposal of
minimum 30 metres length of the service line. They have requested to reconsider the
minimum length of the service line. They have also objected to the working of the
Service Connection Charges on the basis of retail prices, which are higher by about
30 %.
Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Association has offered identical comments as that
of Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sangathana.
Maharashtra Electricity Consumers Association (MECA) stated that most of the time
the licensee does not have the required material in its stock and the consumers are
asked to buy the same at their own cost. Hence MSEDCL should not be permitted to
levy any charges towards Service Connection, and instead the licensee may ask the
consumers to buy the material and levy only the supervision charges @ 2 % of the
labour charges.
Industrial Co- operative Association Ltd, Malegaon has a general objection to the
Schedule of Charges stating that it will have adverse effect on power loom industry.
Nasik Industries & Manufacturers Association (NIMA) has stated that it is a normal
practice of the licensee to ask the consumer to provide the required material and
hence MSEDCL do not incur any expenditure on this work. Shri Madhukar
Brahmankar suggested that Service Connection Charges should be totally dropped &
MSEDCL has no authority to collect such an amount from the consumers to construct
and develop its own assets.
Kolhapur Zila Dalap-Kandap Girani Malak Sangh has suggested that the licensee
may levy Service Connection Charges at reasonable rate only where the distribution
network is not available and in other cases they should levy the charges at
concessional rates. They have objected to the practice of asking consumer to buy the
necessary material, as the consumer purchases the same of inferior quality to save his
money, which will finally have adverse effect on distribution system.
Tata Motors Ltd. has suggested that Service Connection Charges to be recovered by
MSEDCL should be based on average /normative rates worked out by consultants
like SICOM & not on the estimate of a local engineer of the licensee. Besides, the
application form for electric supply should clearly define the MSEDCLs scope of
work and the material required under Service Connection Charges to ensure total
transparency to the consumer.
Maharashtra State Power loom Federation has objection to minimum length of 30
metres service line, saying that in many cases it is very much less than 30 metres.
They also have objected to retail rates indicated in the respective annexures to the
proposal, which are 30 % higher than that of CPA rates.

Page 5 of 40

Shri Pankaj Muni, Kamalesh Shah, Sunil Saraf have jointly submitted their objections
to the costing based on 30 metres length and have said that the charges should be
based on estimated cost of actual work involved. And if at all it has to be normative
then it should be irrespective of length involved and not in two parts. They have also
raised objection to the prices, which are on higher side by 25 to 30 % than that of
bulk purchaser.
Shri Nikit Abhyankar representing Shri Khedkar of Akhil Bharatiya Grahak
Panchayat (ABGP) stated that he has not received SICOMs comments and annexure
H of proposed Schedule of Charges from MSEDCL, as was published in the public
notice and on this ground itself the Commission should reject the proposed Schedule
of Charges. He had no specific comment on Service Connection Charges.
Malegaon Power loom & Sarvajanik veej Grahak Sangh objected to the proposed
Schdule of Charges and requested the Commission to reject the proposal of
MSEDCL.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Association pointed out that the proposal has
been submitted by the MSEDCL after the given period of one month of notification
without giving any reasoning /explanation for such delay. Hence prima facie it needs
to be dismissed.
Shri Ashwin Treasurer on behalf of Thane Small Scale Industries Association
submitted that Service Connection Charges should not be recovered from the
consumer at the time of extension of load.
Shri Ravi Anand of Electrical Consumers Association (ECA) stated that it is the duty
of Licensee to bring supply upto distributing mains and beyond that the cost is to be
borne by the consumer. He further stated that MSEDCL should submit a fresh
proposal considering market rates.
1.3 MSEDCLs Response
1.3.1 MSEDCL has clarified about the distinction between distribution mains and
service connection with the help of various provisions of EA, 2003. MSEDCL has
made a submission to the Commission that for the purpose of determination of
Schedule of Charges the distribution main should be considered as the nearest
available and technically feasible distribution network to which the
applicant/consumer can be connected. It is also required to make distinction between
applicability of Service Connection Charges, Service line charges and the estimated
actual cost.

Page 6 of 40

1.3.2 Service Connection Charges are payable by the applicant for connecting the
premises where connection is required to the nearest distribution infrastructure and it
does not include any cost towards any additional infrastructure work for providing
supply to the applicant. MSEDCL has pointed out that the recovery of SCC is
permitted under regulation no. 3.3.1 of the Supply Code Regulations issued by
MERC.
If the distribution main is available from where electric line is required to be provided
to the applicants premise or some plant is required to be set up, such expenses can be
recovered as Service Connection Charges by the distribution licensee.
1.3.3 As regards rates of materials, MSEDCL has clarified that they purchase various
materials through their Central Purchasing Agency (CPA); the time involved in
arranging the purchases is significantly higher considering the process of tendering it
has to follow. Therefore MSEDCL has empowered the local offices to purchase the
necessary items from the local retail market so as to meet the supply obligation stated
above. The cost available in the local market is higher by 30% to 40 % on an average
as compared to the bulk procurement CPA rates.
MSEDCL further submitted that the CPA rates used for the calculation of SCC at the
time of proposal have under gone significant change since the time of filing and need
to be revised. MSEDCL is willing to consider the revised CPA rates, without any
escalation for retail rates for computation of Schedule of Charges.
1.3.4 The actual work involved for providing connection to different consumers may
vary depending upon factors such as the type of consumer, required load, voltage
level and distance. Hence the Schedule of Charges is generalized provision applicable
to all the consumers, as it cannot be made specific to individual consumer on a caseto-case basis. MSEDCL has given the reference of Regulation 3.3.1 of the Supply
Code Regulation in respect of recovery of such expenses on the basis of average or
normative rates.
MSEDCL has also indicated their agreement to consider 20 metres as average
normative length in place of the average normative length of 30 metres of the service
connection. The revised schedule submitted is based on 20 metres as the average
normative length & revised CPA rates.

1.4 Commissions Ruling


In order to simplify the procedure while releasing the connection, the Commission
has decided to dispense with the measurement linked variable charges. The
Commission has further decided to rationalize the normative charges by reducing the
load slabs proposed by MSEDCL. The normative Service Connection Charges as
approved by the Commission are indicated in Annexure-1.

Page 7 of 40

The Commission approves a rate of 1.30% of the normative charges to be recovered


towards supervision charges in case MSEDCL permits an applicant to carry out the
works through a Licensed Electrical Contractor.
In case a consumer applies for an additional load/contract demand i.e. extension of
load and if the release of additional load/contract demand entails any works, the
Commission allows MSEDCL to recover the normative charges for the total
load/contract demand (existing as well as additional load) as per the applicable load
slabs indicated in Annexure - 1 and 2. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (1)]

2) Service Connection Charges for overhead HT Supply.


2.1 MSEDCLs proposal
The existing Service Connection Charges are proposed to be maintained as per
existing rates for HT consumers.
Proposed charges by MSEDCL are indicated in Annexure 1.
2.2 Objections
Ispat Industries Ltd has demanded calculations/ working sheets for Service
Connection Charges in respect of EHV/Industrial loads. Secondly they have stated
that these charges should not be levied in the case of additional load sanction, where
MSEDCL do not invest on lines/connection.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has objected to retail
rates, which are about 30% higher than that of CPA. They have further contended that
the working sheet of Service Connection Charges for HV/EHV supply is
not
provided.
Shri R B Goenka on behalf of VIA stated that even the SCC of Rs. 30000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand) presently being collected up to the load of 1000 kVA by the
MSEDCL from HT consumers, has no justification whatsoever, and such Service
Connection Charges should be waived off.
2.3 MSEDCLs response
MSEDCL has proposed to continue with the same service connection charges as are
presently applicable to high-tension consumers and therefore working sheet for the
same has not been submitted. MSEDCL has proposed Service Connection Charges
applicable to the high-tension consumers at the flat rate of Rs.30000/- for the first
1000 kVA and further at the rate of Rs. 20/- per kVA for Contract demand exceeding
1000 kVA. They have further stated that the rate of Rs. 20/- per kVA may therefore
not to be interpreted as variable charge.
2.4 Commissions Ruling
The Commission decides to introduce only two slabs namely a) upto 500 kVA & b)
above 500 kVA and directs MSEDCL to charge in two slabs i.e. upto 500 kVA &
above 500 kVA as indicated in Annexure-1. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (2)]

Page 8 of 40

3) Service Connection Charges for underground LT Supply.


3.1 MSEDCLs Proposal
As per the existing practice, applicant is required to procure all the materials and
make payment to the MSEDCL as per normative charges proposed in the respective
annexure to the proposal.
Proposed charges by MSEDCL are indicated in respective annexure of the proposal.
3.2 Objections
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has
objected
to levy of charges for underground service connections stating that in the case when
applicant is supplying the required material, it is not clear whether the proposed
supervision charges are based on the material cost or on the labour charges.
Kolhapur Zila Dalap Kandap Girani Malak Sangh has suggested that
underground connection should be done by the licensee himself instead of asking the
consumer to do it & recover the charges from the consumer in installments.
Shri Pankaj Muni, Kamalesh Shah, Sunil Saraf have demanded details of charges for
under ground cable so that the proposal can be studied.
3.3 MSEDCLs response
For providing underground service connection, it has been proposed that the
prospective consumer shall bring his own material and shall be liable to only
supervision charges, which shall be 15% of the cost of labour. In view of the above,
the working sheets for estimation of the service connection charges for underground
services, has not been annexed.
3.4 Commissions Ruling
MSEDCL has proposed some normative rates for underground LT connections
without furnishing any working sheets for the same, if applicant brings all service
connection materials. In absence of the working sheets, the Commission has worked
out the rates for new underground LT supply based on the market rates of the
materials and work estimation. The normative rates approved by the Commission are
indicated in Annexure-2. In case MSEDCL permits an applicant to carry out the
works, the MSEDCL may recover supervision charges at the rate of 1.3% of the
normative rates indicated in Annexure-2. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (4)]
4) Service Connection Charges for underground HT Supply.
4.1 MSEDCLs Proposal
MSEDCL has not indicated charges for underground connections for HT consumers.
4.2 Objections
No specific comments/objections were raised either in written submissions or during
public hearing on this item.
4.3 MSEDCLs Response
There is no response from MSEDCL on this item.
Page 9 of 40

4.4 Commissions Ruling


In absence of any proposal for underground HT supply, the Commission has worked
out the rates based on the market rates of the materials and work estimation. The
normative rates approved by the Commission are indicated in Annexure-2. [For
detailed Ruling refer Section-III (4)]

Item: Cost of meter and meter box


5.1 MSEDCLs Proposal
MSEDCL has proposed rates for various types of meters with & without box in their
Schedule of Charges as indicated in Annexure -3.
5.2 Objections
MECA suggested that MSEDCL should install protective device for the meter to
avoid frequent burning of the meter.
NIMA has expressed their strong objection on this issue stating that it is the property
of the licensee under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 & IE Rules, 1956 and it
is illegal to recover the cost of such equipments.
Kolhapur Zila Dalap Kandap Girani Malak Sangh has suggested that the licensee may
levy appropriate price of the meter and the meter box but MSEDCL should have
transparency in the levy of such charges.
Maharashtra State Power loom Federation has not commented on the proposed
charges for meter & meter box but they have cited one case of Bhivandi where even
at present the collected cost of the meter is more than the proposed cost in the
schedule of charges under consideration for the approval of MERC.
Dr. Ashok Pendse on behalf of MGP said that the proposed charges for Meter are
much higher than the market rates. For example, single-phase electromagnetic meter
costs about Rs. 200 /- in the market, where as MSEDCL is asking Rs. 1000/- for the
same.
5.3 MSEDCLs response
Cost of meter is applicable only in case the consumers opt to purchase the meter from
the licensee or in case of burnt or lost meter, since as per the Supply Code
Regulations 14.2.4, except in the case of a burnt meter or a lost meter, the distribution
licensee shall not be authorized to recover the price of the meter more than once
during the continuance of supply to the consumer.
5.4 Commissions Ruling
The Commission directs MSEDCL not to recover any cost towards meter and meter
box except where the consumer opts to purchase the meter from MSEDCL and in
case of lost and burnt meter (Regulation 14.1 & 14.2 of Supply Code). The charges
applicable in case the consumer elects to purchase the meter from MSEDCL & in
Page 10 of 40

case of lost and burnt meter are indicated at Annexure-3. [For detailed Ruling refer
Section-III (5)]

Item: Service Line Charges


6.1 MSEDCLs Proposal
The proposed Service Line Charges has been worked on the basis of average
expenditure that would be required for creating infrastructure.
The average cost of 11 / 22 KV line, distribution transformer and the Low Tension
line are considered with diversity factor of 1.3. The working details of average cost
per KW are given in respective annexures enclosed with the proposal. In case of new
/ existing town ship loads, specially in respect of CIDCO, MIDC, MHADA colonies
and also township developments by private entities, the total
infrastructure
development costs on normative basis have been considered after taking into account
the 33 KV network also, since that will be required for release of such supplies. The
details of the normative service line charges in respect of these types of townships are
given in separate annexures enclosed with the proposal.
The different sub-categories in residential and commercial segments have been
rationalized and the practical loading pattern for Urban and Rural areas have been
considered differently for arriving at the service line charges. Specific weightage is
given to fact that practically the usage of electricity in rural area for the domestic
activities is lower than that of urban areas.
MSEDCL has also proposed that the rate for kaccha constructions including huts and
slums will be half of the rates given in respective annexures for both urban and rural
areas.
MSEDCL has further proposed to carry out rationalization in respect of different
categories of HT & LT industries and apply a uniform rate of Rs. 650 per kVA
(existing rate for normative service line charges for EHV consumers or non-SSI
consumers). Further, the rates for industries will be half in rural areas. These rates are
proposed irrespective of geographical location of the industry, only categorization
being urban and rural areas, as will be notified by the Government. This is proposed
in order to encourage industrial growth in rural areas.
MSEDCL has proposed to introduce service line charges in respect of agricultural
connections. The details for the infrastructure development required for release of
agricultural connections on average basis are also given.

6.2 Objections
VIA has objected to the levy of these charges saying that it is against the provisions
under the Electricity Act, 2003. Shri R B Goenka stated that under the Section 46,
Section 42(1) and Section 43(2) of EA, 2003, it is the duty of the licensee to provide
infrastructure. There should be a threshold beyond which the scope of the consumer
should start. This scope of consumer should start beyond the distribution mains. He
Page 11 of 40

also cited Section 43 of EA, 2003, It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee
to provide, if required electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the
premises, specified in sub section (1). He stated that MSEDCL can recover the cost
of plant and equipment only if the consumer requires dedicated or express feeders
specifically used by him. He further added that the MSEDCL has taken the cost of 33
KV Sub station, 33 KV lines, Distribution transformer, etc. for arriving the normal
cost. However as per the provisions of EA, 2003, MSEDCL cannot charge 33kV &
11kV infrastructure beyond distribution mains.
Further the expenditure incurred by the licensee for the development & strengthening
of the distribution network /infrastructure becomes the part of ARR and is duly
considered by way of appropriate provision in tariff rates.
Shri S D Damle suggested that since the collection of Service Line Charges is for
building a healthy distribution system, MERC should permit the licensee to levy such
charges at fair & reasonable rates. He has further said that the amount so collected
under the head SLC by any sub division of the licensee must be spent in the same sub
division for the improvement / strengthening of distribution network and not for any
other assets like buildings, vehicles etc. Also this kind of utilization of the funds as
above should be monitored and controlled.
Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sanghatana, Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak
Association, Maharashtra State Power loom Federation and Halari Power loom
Owners and weavers Association have strongly objected to these charges on the
ground that other licensees do not seem to levy this charge.
MECA has objected to the levy of these charges stating that it is contrary to the
provisions under section 42 of EA, 2003 and hence this proposal should be rejected.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has stated that
Section 42 of the EA, 2003 provides that the infrastructure development is the duty of
the licensee. Shri Shahid Ansari requested that the proposal should be rejected, as it
was not submitted within specified time after the MERC notification.
NIMA has stated that unit charges are inclusive of generation, transmission &
distribution cost, hence separate Service Line Charges should not be demanded from
the consumers. They have further stated that if these charges are levied, the initial
cost of new connection will become very high and prospective consumers will tend to
resort to pilferage /theft for not getting service line from the licensee. Shri Madhukar
Brahmankar objected to the classification on the basis of Rural /Urban area. He added
that SLC and SCC should not be recovered from the farmers. Also SLC should not be
collected at the time of additional load requirement, as there are no infrastructure
activities involved.
Tata Motors Ltd. has stated that these charges are justified only when the costs of the
items required for service line are not getting reflected /included under capital work
provisions made under ARR, because MSEDCL normally receives the finance /funds
from REC/PFC or other financial institution for such type of work.

Page 12 of 40

Shri U M Joshi & S W Pasarkar, members of MGP, Thane Division have objected
saying that it is against the law. Shri Ujwalraj Joshi submitted that they have not
received feedback regarding copy of proposal from MSEDCL. MSEDCLs proposal
on SLC does not mention regarding penalty, which may be considered.
Shri Pankaj Muni, Kamalesh Shah, Sunil Saraf have objected on the ground that as
per Supply Code Regulations & provisions under Section 42 of EA, 2003, it is the
responsibility of the licensee to develop the infrastructure
MGP has strongly objected to the levy of these charges as it goes against the
provisions under section 42(1) of Electricity Act 2003. The existing method of
charging SLC & SCC should be scrapped and only SCC should be allowed in
accordance with provisions of the law.
Dr. Ashok Pendse explained the difference between the Service Connection Charges
and the Service Line Charges. He raised several objections against the proposed
Service line charges with following reasons:
a) In open access system, whenever it becomes effective, the MSEDCL will be able
to recover the cost of Service line from anybody who gets the supply through that
line.
b) He referred to the preamble of APDRP in which four objectives are mentioned:
i) Reduction in T & D Losses,
ii) Increase in collection efficiency,
iii) Increase in the consumer mass /no. of consumers and
iv) Convenience to consumers.
The third objective of APDRP relates basically to capital expenditure. The
Commission is allowing expenditure for works covered under APDRP for developing
infrastructure, as developing infrastructure is the responsibility of utility. If the
Commission accepts this principle then there cannot be any SLC at all, simply on the
ground that it is the responsibility of the utility to lay the network. He further stated
that he is aware of financial difficulty faced by MSEDCL as on today. Under the
circumstances, the Commission may partially approve some of the charges, which
can be recovered from the consumers, like Regulatory Liability Charge and refund it
to the consumers after six months. This can be a temporary measure, as the MSEDCL
may not be having Capital expenditure sanctioned for distribution network
development. As a principle, it is the responsibility of the Distribution Licensee to
develop necessary infrastructure.
c) Dr. Pendse further stated the need for defining the point from which the
responsibility of the consumer starts. He added that this can happen at different
voltage levels and once it is defined and accepted by the Commission for MSEDCL,
the same will be applicable to other utilities like BEST, TPC, REL as there should be
a common methodology.
d) He raised objection about the method of charging on the basis of the square feet
area of the premises for which the supply is required. He also stated that there should
not be any discrimination on the basis of the locality such as whether it is in CIDCO,
Page 13 of 40

MHADA or any other society. The charges should be on the basis of the load
requirement and not on the basis of a carpet area. He also stated that the other utilities
like Telecom, Income tax dept.& Water supply do not levy charges based on the
carpet area.
Shri Nikit Abhankar stated that he is also of the same opinion as that of Dr. Pendse,
that the licensee cannot recover the cost of infrastructure development from the
consumers. It has to be passed on through the ARR in the tariff revision process.
Hence this item should be excluded from the proposal.
Shri Bhalachandra on behalf of ISPAT stated that the basis of calculation of SLC &
SCC be made available to the consumers. He also said that in case of additional load
sanction, the SLC or SCC should not be charged. His point was that there is no
specific time frame stipulated for categorization of Urban / Rural to take effect and
requested MERC to expedite it. He said that ISPAT Industry be categorized under
Rural area whereby SLC rates will be half. This categorization should be made
effective with retrospective effect, whereby the already paid SLC at higher rate be
refunded or adjusted against the SLC required for additional load. His next point was
about the penalty for excess demand, which is proposed three times of SLC. He
submitted that penalty for exceeding the contract demand is a Tariff issue and it is not
clear as to how it can be linked with SLC. Finally he requested the Commission that
in case any new consumer is brought under SLC then correspondingly SLC should be
reduced to EHV consumers.
Shri Faizan Ahmad Azmi of Maharashtra State Power loom Federation, Bhiwandi
stated that as per their knowledge other distribution companies in the State do not
recover SLC from the consumers. He further stated that as per Supply Code, the
Distribution Licensee should not take SLC. He also mentioned that the CPA rates
shown in the proposal are 30 % higher.
He also pointed out that in Bhiwandi SLC from non-SSI power looms is being
collected at the rate of Rs 1300/- per HP instead of Rs 650/- as shown in the proposal
and requested the Commission to look in to the matter and direct the MSEDCL to
refund the excess amount collected so far.
Shri Chandulal J. Sumaria of Halari Power loom Owners and weavers Association
submitted that the actual collection and the rates mentioned by MSEDCL in the
proposal are different and requested the Commission to conduct an enquiry.
Shri Ashwin Treasurer of Thane Small Scale Industries Association submitted that as
per Section 43 of EA, 2003 and Regulation 3.3 of supply code, service line only from
Distribution main has to be charged to the consumer. For augmentation in distribution
capacity, it is to be charged on pro rata basis. He further stated that in case of
dedicated line only a small cost towards transformer be recovered from the consumer.
There cannot be transformer cost involved in every service connection charges.
He further stated that as regards the issue of type of the structure i.e. Kachhapucca, the licensee has not studied the Act and Regulations. The entire Schedule is
irrational & arbitrary. The method of charging on the basis of square foot area is
debatable and should not be considered for approval.

Page 14 of 40

6.3 MSEDCLs response


MSEDCL has attempted justification for levy of Service line Charges and referred
to Regulation nos. 3.3.2, 3.3.3 & 3.3.4 of Supply Code Regulations.
The proposed charges include normative expenditure towards HT line, Distribution
Transformer and the cost of additional infrastructure to be created for bringing
distribution network closer to the applicants premises.
MSEDCL has also clarified that it would recover the actual estimated expenditure
from the consumers on proportionate basis, in case it is necessary to augment
transformer capacity in the substation and /or augment the capacity of sub
transmission and distribution system for providing power supply to the consumers.
MSEDCL has clarified that for a dedicated distribution system, the MSEDCL would
recover the actual estimated expenditure from the consumer as stipulated under
Regulation 3.3.3 of the Supply Code Regulations.
As regards objections raised by various members of the public on the issue of
differential charges for Rural Urban, Kutchha Pukka structures, MSEDCL in their
response has mentioned that this is the concession offered by the licensee to a weaker
section of the society so that they are able to have access to the electricity as
stipulated under the National Electricity Policy & Plan. It is a business practice
adopted by MSEDCL for ensuring speedy implementation of the national goal of
power for all.
MSEDCL has interpreted the provisions of Section 45 of EA, 2003 that though the
distribution licensee has to provide electric line, or electric plant required for the
purpose of giving supply to the consumer, the cost of the same has to be paid by the
consumer.
MSEDCL has further added that the licensee is entitled to recover charges towards an
electric line or electric plant or electric line up to Distribution main, in case nearby
distribution mains is not available, and such charges are being claimed by the
distribution licensee as SLC charge. The said claim according to MSEDCL is
perfectly legal and proper.
The Service line Charges are to be recovered towards providing power supply facility
at appropriate voltage level up to the applicants premises and for recovery of cost
towards the relevant common network.
The SLC Charges are required to be recovered from the applicant, as it is extra
burden on the distribution licensee to provide electricity to the consumer, as
Distribution licensee is duty bound to supply electricity on the request of the
consumer. MSEDCL further submitted that section 46 read with section 43 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, means that expenses required for electric plant or line can be
recovered along with reasonable expenses required for laying such line or plant.
MSEDCL submitted that most of the capital expenditure schemes financed by REC or
PFC are primarily directed at system augmentation and improvement and not for
expansion.
Page 15 of 40

6.4 Commissions Ruling


The Commission totally rejects MSEDCLs proposal to recover Service Line Charges
from the prospective consumers except in cases of consumers requiring dedicated
distribution facility. As per the provisions of the Act, developing infrastructure is the
responsibility of Licensee. The Commission, therefore directs that the cost towards
infrastructure from delivery point of transmission system to distributing mains should
be borne by MSEDCL. The recurring expenses related to the capital investment on
infrastructure shall be considered during ARR determination. [For detailed Ruling
refer Section-III (6)]

Item: Miscellaneous & General Charges


MSEDCLs proposal
MSEDCL has proposed enhancement of existing charges for some items. The
proposal also includes few items which are added for the first time in schedule of
charges. Charges proposed by MSEDCL are listed in Annexures-4 and 5.
Objections
During the public hearing some of the objectors offered general comments on entire
Schedule of Miscellaneous & General Charges.
Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sanghatana and Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak
Association have said that the Miscellaneous & General Charges should be based on
average expenditure.
NIMA has objected to these Charges, as the same are totally unjustified.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has stated that some
charges like relay testing, transformer testing, switchgear testing, service call charges,
capacitor hiring charges, etc. are optional and there is no provision in the Act to levy
these charges.
Specific objections were raised on some of the individual items of the Miscellaneous
& General Charges.
Item wise Summary of Objections received, Response filed by MSEDCL and ruling
of Commission is as under:

Page 16 of 40

7) Installation testing fee


7.1 Objection
ABGP, Pune has stated that first testing before giving connection should be free of
charge.
7.2 MSEDCLs Response
The report of installation testing will be provided to the consumer.
7.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission directs MSEDCL not to charge any amount for first inspection and
testing of consumers installation at the time of giving new connection. For all the
subsequent tests & inspection of the consumers installation as per the provisions
under rule 53 of I E Rules, 1956, the charges proposed by MSEDCL are approved.
[For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7)(i)]
8) Reconnection Charges
8.1 Objections
MGP has said that there is a need for escalating these charges but not at the proposed
rates, which are 315 % to 1600 % higher than existing rates.
VIA has stated that the proposed charges are very high and have not been justified
with any calculations of expenses incurred by MSEDCL for these services.
Kolhapur Zila Dalap Kandap Girani Malak Sangh has objected to the proposed
reconnection charges saying that the same are 3 to 16 times higher than existing rates.
The licensee may levy appropriate charges after duly checking the reason for
disconnection.
ABGP, Pune has stated that maximum charges may be Rs.1000/-.
Maharashtra State Power loom Federation & Shri Halari Power loom Owners and
weavers Association have objected to the proposed reconnection charges saying that
the same are 3 to 16 times higher than existing rates. The licensee may levy
appropriate charges after duly checking the reason for disconnection.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objection to the proposed charges saying that the same are
very high.
Shri Sandeep Pasarkar stated that at times the disconnection is done without
following proper legal procedure. In such cases the deterrent principle should be
applied to the concerned staff also and not only against the consumers. If it is a lapse
on the part of the staff member the reconnection charge should be recovered from him
and 50 % of that be refunded to the consumer and rest 50 % be retained by the
MSEDCL.

Page 17 of 40

Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Association stated that the Miscellaneous &
General Charges are 3 to 16 times higher than existing rates and the charges should
be based on actual expenditure.
8.2 MSEDCLs Response
Higher charges have been proposed for reconnection of power supply as, such higher
reconnection charges may, up to certain extent, act as a deterrent factor and may,
motivate the consumers to pay the energy bills on time. This is for encouraging
prompt payment and to discourage consumer from becoming defaulter.
8.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission views the existing charges to be reasonable and reflecting the cost
involved based on the material and work estimation. However, in order to further
rationalize the charges, Commission directs MSEDCL to recover reconnection
charges as indicated in Annexure-4. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7)(ii)]
9) Changing location of the meters within the same premise
9.1 Objections
MGP has suggested that the charge should be Rs.50 plus the cost of required material
if the location change is done at the request of the consumer. If the licensee wants to
do it for his or her own reasons then entire cost including post meter work should be
borne by the distribution licensee.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected that the proposed rate of Rs. 100/- is very high.
Existing rate of Rs. 30/- is in order.
9.2 MSEDCLs Response
The charges for changing of location of meter are charged as per lump sum charges
and hence work sheet is not provided.
9.3 Commissions Ruling
Considering the average cost of material and labour involved in shifting of meter, the
normative charges of Rs. 100/- proposed by MSEDCL appears to be reasonable and
the Commission approves the proposed charges with the condition that this should
cover the total cost including the cost of material required for changing the location of
the meter at the behest of the consumer.
The charges for changing the location of meter within the premise will be applicable
only in cases where the shifting is to be done at the request of the consumer.
However, when MSEDCL seeks to have the location changed on justified ground
such as safety requirement etc., then the cost of such shifting shall be entirely borne
by MSEDCL. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7)(iii)]

Page 18 of 40

10) Testing of meters


10.1 Objections
MGP has stated that there is no data provided to work out the scope and cost of
testing. The consumer may be charged only if it is being done at his request and the
licensee should test the meter at least once in a year, at their own cost.
VIA has stated that the MSEDCL has not given any justification for the proposed
charges and also it is not clearly specified as to when these charges are to be paid by
the consumer.
MECA has suggested that the charges be revised to Rs. 25/- (Rupees twenty five)
for single-phase meter, Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) for three phase meter, and Rs.100 /(Rupees hundred) for H T purpose.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected to the present system of testing the meters at
MSEDCL stating that it is very old and there is no improvement in it, hence this hike
should not be allowed.
ABGP, Pune has suggested that testing charges be fixed as Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) for
single phase meter, Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) for Poly phase meter, Rs.300/(Rupees three hundred) for LT MD and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) for Trivector meter.
Shri Ashwin Treasurer of Thane Small Scale Industries Association said that as per
Regulation 3.3.7 of Supply Code Regulations, the service line and the meter has to be
maintained by the licensee and as such they can not charge anything for testing of
meter. He further added that the testing charges could be recovered from the
consumer, only if the consumer challenges the meter accuracy; it is tested in his
presence and found to be working in order and not in any other circumstances.
10.2 MSEDCLs response
There is no specific response from MESDCL on this issue.
10.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission approves the charges for testing of meters as proposed by
MSEDCL. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7) (iv)]
11) Replacement of meter cards for HT consumers
11.1 Objections
MGP stated that meter card is the requirement of the licensee. Hence the charge
should be levied only if the card is damaged or lost and not otherwise.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected that the rate of Rs.25/- (Rupees twenty five) is not
justified & should be rejected.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has stated that it is
not clear whether charges proposed are for damaged or lost meter card?
Page 19 of 40

11.2 MSEDCLs Response


The charges for replacement of meter card are proposed for damaged or lost meter
card.
11.3 Commissions Ruling
MSEDCL has reportedly installed TOD meters to all HT consumers. The meters have
data storage with downloading features and data can be collected as and when
required. In view of above separate meter card may not be necessary. However, if the
MSEDCL intends to continue this practice of maintaining the cards for HT consumer,
they may do so at their own cost. In view of above, the Commission rejects the
proposed charges for replacement of meter card for HT consumer. [For detailed
Ruling refer Section-III (7) (v)]
12) Penalty for cheque bouncing
12.1 Objections
MGP has stated that the penal charges should be on actuals levied by bank for
dishonoured payment.
VIA has suggested that the penal charges should be based on actuals levied by the
bank.
Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sanghatana, Veej Grahak Samiti and Solapur Zilla
Yantramag Dharak Association have stated that the charges proposed are
unreasonable and should be rejected.
ABGP, Pune stated that these charges may be deleted as Negotiable Instruments Act
can take care of this problem.
12.2 MSEDCLs Response
Penalty of cheque bouncing though covered under the Negotiable Instrument Act is
included in schedule of charges as these are the charges for expenses incurred by
utility and also to have deterrent effect on the concerned consumer.
12.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission approves the charges towards compensation of bank charges and
MSEDCLs administrative charges towards each of such specific cases as indicated in
Annexure-4. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7) (vi)]
13) Temporary meters /hiring of meters charges
13.1 Objection
Veej Grahak Samiti has stated that these charges are not justified. It would be in order
if processing fee up to Rs.20/- (Rupees twenty) and meter rent of Rs.20/- (Rupees
twenty) is levied.
13.2 MSEDCLs Response
MSEDCL has responded to the objection regarding processing fees for temporary
connection. However, there is no mention about hiring charges for meter in
MSEDCLs response.
Page 20 of 40

13.3 Commissions Ruling


Regulation 3.3.6 empowers the licensee to recover all expenses reasonably incurred
for the purpose of giving temporary supply & for the purpose of discontinuance of
such temporary supply.
Since the entire cost for temporary connection is to be borne by consumer, the
Commission rejects the proposed charges for hiring of meter in case of Temporary
connection. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7) (vii)]
14) Penalty for Harmonics variation above normal limits
14.1 MSEDCLs Proposal:
MSEDCL has proposed penalty for Harmonics variation above normal limit of 3% as
indicated in Annexure 4.
14.2 Objections:
Shri R.B. Goenka representing VIA submitted that the proposed limit of variation
above 3% in harmonics is without any technical justification. He further said that the
level of the variation in Harmonics depends upon the fault level of supply system and
penalty for harmonics is a part of tariff determination process.
ABGP, Pune stated that as penalty for harmonics is a tariff related issue, the charges
may be deleted.
14.3 MSEDCLs Response
The suggestion regarding penalty for exceeding normal limit of harmonics will be
charged as per MERC directives.
14.4 Commissions ruling
As the Penalty for Harmonics is a tariff related issue, like that of power factor, the
Commission in absence of any substantiated proposal, does not accept proposed penal
charges at this stage. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7) (viii)]
15 Hiring charges for CT/PT unit, CT metering cabinet & HT metering cabinet,
Transformers & capacitors; Testing of LT CTs, CTPT unit, relays, 11/22kV
switchgears, transformers, transformer oil and LT & HT capacitors; Charges
for standby transformer.

Page 21 of 40

15.1 MSEDCLs proposal:


The detailed rates as proposed by MSEDCL are indicated in the table below:
MISCELLANEOUS & GENERAL CHARGES
Sr.
Particulars
Proposed (Rs.)
No.
50% cost of T/F as Security
1 Hiring Charges per month
Deposit Plus 3% cost of T/F as
CTPT unit/set
monthly rent.
HT metering cubicle
11Kv
22kV
33kV
2 Transformer hiring Charges
50% cost of T/F as Security
Deposit plus 3% cost of T/F as
monthly rent
3 Testing of LT CT's
100 per set
Testing of CTPT units
a) At MSEDCL's laboratory
1500
b) Testing & sealing of CTPT Unit
5000
5000
c) At MSEDCL's filter unit centre
laboratory & manufacturers/
consumer s premises
4 Relay Testing
At site
600 per element or 1000 for
Complete Relay inclusive of
transport
At MSEDCL's laboratory
200 per element
or 500 for Complete Relay
5 11/22 kV Switchgear testing
5000
complete per Breaker
6 Transformer Testing including
oil testing at site
i) Dist.Transformer
3000
ii) Power Transformer
10000
iii) Dist.Transformer Testing including
1000
oil testing at MSEDCL's filter unit
7 Transformer oil Testing
at MSEDCL's laboratory
a. Dielectric test; First sample
100
Subsequent sample
50
Acidity test; First sample
50
Subsequent sample
30
c. Crackle test; First sample
100
Subsequent sample
100
200 per person
8 Service Call
(for every 4Hrs. or part thereof)
Charge for attendance of fuse man
at consumers premises
9 Capacitor Hire Charges
10
(per KVAR per month)
10 Testing of LT capacitors
10 per KVAR
11 Testing HT capacitors at cons.
3000
premises on cons. request
( per MVAR or part thereof )
b.

Page 22 of 40

15.2 Objections
MGP has stated that the proposed charges for CT/PT are almost double. As far as
other items added for the first time are concerned, the basis of working out these
charges is not given. As regards other items, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has stated
that these are all optional items. It is the responsibility of the licensee and there is no
provision in the Act, hence it should not be granted. They further stated that Service
call charges should be Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) per hour instead of Rs. 200/- (Rupees
two hundred) per 4 (four) hours and part thereof.
VIA has stated that the proposed charges should be based on the cost of equipment
with a calculation for interest and depreciation on the cost of equipment. They further
stated that the proposed charges are very high and without any basis of calculations.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected that the proposed rates are very high and there is a
need to consider the basic cost of the equipment and the hiring charges levied on it,
hence this proposal should not be sanctioned. It is the responsibility of the licensee
and hence even existing charges should be abolished.
15.3 MSEDCLs Response
Hiring charges are optional charges and will be applicable only when the consumer
will opt to hire any of the equipment owned by MSEDCL.
15.4 Commissions Ruling
Charges proposed for providing various types of equipments to the consumer are on
hire basis and charges for testing of equipments belonging to consumer cannot be
considered under Schedule of Charges, as these are non-regulatory items generating
other income for the licensee.

Item: Application registration and processing charges


16.1 Objections
MGP has stated that there is no justification/ reasoning for the rise of 100 to 500 %,
hence existing charges may be continued.
ABGP, Pune stated that the processing charges should be minimum. They have
suggested charges of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten) to 25/- (Rupees twenty five) for LT
consumers & Rs. 100/- (Rupees hundred) for HT consumers.
VIA has stated that these charges should be based on actual quantum of work
involved. Shri R B Goenka stated that the MSEDCL should carryout following works
after payment of application processing fees by the consumer:
i) Inspection of consumers point of supply and survey lines to be erected.
ii) Preparation of layout and the drawings for the works to be carried out.
iii) Provide specification of the equipments along with the bill of quantities of
material to the consumer for carrying out the work.
iv) Detailed cost estimate along with the demand note for supply of power with
calculation of security deposit to be paid by the consumer.
Page 23 of 40

16.2 MSEDCLs Response


MSEDCL has responded that the rates of processing fees are calculated on lump sum
basis.
16.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission allows MSEDCL to collect the amount towards the application
processing or receipt thereof at nominal rates as indicated in Annexure-5. [For
detailed Ruling refer Section-III (8)]

III - COMMISSIONs ANALYSIS, TARIFF PHILOSOPHY AND


DECISION ON ITEMWISE SCHEDULE OF CHARGES

Service Connection Charges:


1)

Service Connection Charges for overhead LT Supply.


MSEDCL has proposed two separate charges towards cost involved in
releasing new connections namely, Service Connection Charges (SCC) &
Service Line Charges (SLC). It becomes necessary to clearly distinguish
between the works involved in SCC & SLC.
As per the EA, 2003, Distribution system means the system of wires and
associated facilities between the delivery points on the transmission lines or
the generating station connection and the point of connection to the
installation of the consumers [Section 2(19)]. Further, Distributing main
has been defined as the portion of any main with which a service line is, or is
intended to be, immediately connected [Section 2(18)].

Section 42(1) of the Act stipulates that it shall be the duty of the distribution
licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical
distribution system in his area of supply ..
From the schedule of charges proposed by MSEDCL it is observed that
Service Line Charges basically covers the cost of infrastructure between the
delivery points on the transmission lines and the distributing mains. Whereas,
Service Connection is interpreted as a link between Licensees nearest
distribution points (i.e. distributing main) to the point of supply at consumers
premises, which also includes other accessories, i.e. any apparatus connected
to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity & SCC covers cost
involved in providing service connection from distributing mains.
As regards collecting charges for the cost of works involved in releasing new
connection, Section 46 of EA, 2003 provides that the State Commission may by
Regulation, authorise the Distribution Licensee to charge from a person requiring
supply of electricity, any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electricity
line or electricity plant used for the purpose of giving that supply.

Page 24 of 40

Thus as per the Act, powers are vested with the Commission to formulate Regulations
specifying the principles for recovering the expenses involved in releasing the
connection which are set out in Regulation 3 of MERC (Supply Code and Other
Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
Regulation 3.3.2. of Electricity Supply Code authorizes the Distribution licensee to
recover all expenses reasonably incurred in laying down service line from the
distribution mains to applicants premises from the applicant.
Thus the applicant is required to pay the entire cost of Service connection line from
the distribution main to his premise.
MSEDCL has proposed to recover SCC at normative rates based on the sanctioned
load/Contract Demand (kW/kVA). The rates are worked out on the basis of average
cost involved in releasing the connection to consumer in these load slabs. In the
original proposal the charges for 30 metres length were worked out on the basis of
cost for standard bill of materials involved for providing 30 metres of service
connection. However, in the light of objections received, MSEDCL has reworked the
charges based on 20 metres service connection length & latest rates of materials.
The proposal of MSEDCL to recover charges on normative basis is in line with the
Regulation 3.3.1 of Supply Code Regulations. However, MSEDCL has proposed a
variable component based on per metre cost of connection, for providing service
connection of length more than 30 meters. By measurement-linked charges, the very
purpose of providing normative charges would be defeated.
In order to simplify the procedure while releasing the connection and to avoid
discretion and disputes at field level, the Commission has decided to dispense with
the measurement linked variable charges. Commission has further decided to
rationalize the normative charges by reducing the load slabs proposed by MSEDCL.
The normative Service Connection Charges as approved by the Commission are
indicated in Annexure 1.
MSEDCL has proposed to recover 10% of the normative SCC towards overall
supervision and connection release charges, where consumer opts to procure the
required material.
MSEDCL has not furnished any worksheets/calculations for the proposed recovery of
10% of normative SCC.
While Regulation 3.3.8 of Supply Code Regulations provides that Distribution
Licensee may permit an applicant to carry out works through a Licensed Electrical
Contractor, the Licensee in that case, is not entitled to recover expenses relating to
such portion of works so carried out by the applicant. The Licensee shall be entitled
to recover only the supervision charges not exceeding the 15% of the cost of labour.
MSEDCL in their calculation sheets has already worked out supervision charges,
involved in releasing the service connection for different load slabs. From the
worksheets it is seen that the average supervision charges are in the range of 1.30 to
1.35% of the total estimated cost involved.
Page 25 of 40

In view of above, the Commission approves a rate of 1.30% of the normative charges
to be recovered towards supervision charges in case MSEDCL permits an applicant to
carry out the works through a Licensed Electrical Contractor.
In case a consumer applies for an additional load/contract demand i.e. extension of
load and if the release of additional load/contract demand entails any new works, the
Commission allows MSEDCL to recover the normative charges for the total
load/contract demand (existing as well as additional load) as per the applicable load
slabs indicated in Annexure - 1 and 2.
2)

Service Connection Charges for overhead HT Supply.


The Commission has observed that the charges proposed under this item are
not supported with any details or any calculations, though several objectors
have raised this issue during public hearing. The reasoning given by
MSEDCL for non-submission of working sheets is vague and evasive. In the
absence of any calculation, the Commission has verified the reasonability of
the proposed charges based on market rates and work estimation.
MSEDCL has proposed Rs. 30000/- for a single slab of 1000 kVA. This will
cause a burden on the consumers like a Small Scale Industry or a small and
medium enterprise with a Contract Demand in the range of 200-500 kVA. In
view of above, the Commission decides to introduce two slabs and
accordingly directs MSEDCL to charge in two slabs i.e. namely upto 500
kVA & above 500 kVA. The rates approved by the Commission are indicated
in Annexure 1.

3)

Service Connection Charges for underground LT Supply.


As per Section 42 read with 43 of the Act, it is the duty of every Distribution
Licensee to provide electric plant or electric line for giving supply to the
premises of an applicant. As such, MSEDCLs proposal to ask consumer to
bring material itself is irrational and contradictory to the provisions of the Act.
The Commission, therefore directs MSEDCL to procure and use its own
material for releasing the underground service connection particularly in
urban and potentially urban areas to ensure safety, reliability and efficiency,
unless an applicant opts and MSEDCL permits him to carry out the works
through a Licensed Electrical Contractor.
Further, MSEDCL has proposed some normative rates for underground LT
connections without furnishing any working sheets for the same, if applicant
brings all service connection materials. In absence of the working sheets, the
Commission has worked out the rates for new underground LT supply based
on the market rates of the materials and work estimation. The normative rates
approved by the Commission are indicated in Annexure-2. In case MSEDCL
permits an applicant to carry out the works, the MSEDCL may recover
supervision charges at the rate of 1.3% of the normative rates indicated in
Annexure-2.

Page 26 of 40

4)

Service Connection Charges for underground HT Supply.


In absence of any proposal for underground HT supply, the Commission has
worked out the rates based on the market rates of the materials and work
estimation. The normative rates approved by the Commission are indicated in
Annexure-2.

5)

Cost of meter & meter box


As per Section 55 of the Act, it is the responsibility of licensee to supply
electricity through installation of correct meter in accordance with the
regulations made in this regard by the Authority i.e. CEA.
The Government of India has notified CEA (Installation & Operation of
Meters) Regulation, 2006 on 17th March 2006. As per Regulation 6(2)(a) of
CEA (Installation & Operation of Meters) Regulation, 2006, consumer
meters shall generally be owned by the licensee .
The above provision implies that meter for new connection should be
provided by the licensee and the cost of meter & meter box shall be borne by
the licensee, except where a consumer elects to purchase the meter from
licensee. The Commission approves the rates proposed by MSEDCL as
indicated in Annexure-3, which would be applicable only in case of a burnt or
a lost meter or where a consumer opts to purchase the meter from MSEDCL.

6) Service Line Charges:


A "service-line" is defined in Section 2(61) of the EA 2003 as under:
"service-line" means any electric supply line through which electricity is, or is
intended to be, supplied (a)
to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the
Distribution Licensee's premises; or
(b)
from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on
contiguous premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main;
In the light of above definition, the terminology Service Line Charges used by
MSEDCL is totally misleading, as the charges proposed under the head Service Line
Charges basically covers the cost of infrastructure from transmission boundary upto
distributing mains and does not involve cost of service line.
MSEDCL has been collecting so called Service Line Charges from the consumers
since 1991 probably due to limited budget provision under State Plan for capital
works and paucity of funds for developmental purpose.
MSEDCL has proposed to continue with Service Line Charges from all categories of
consumers at normative rates. The normative rates are worked out based on the
average cost involved in providing infrastructure and covers cost of electric plant and
electric line from delivery points on transmission lines upto distribution mains.

Page 27 of 40

Strong objections were raised during public hearing on MSEDCLs proposal to


recover SLC from prospective consumers for new connection or for releasing
additional load. The objectors quoted various sections of the Act namely Section 42
and 43 wherein it has been clearly specified that it shall be the duty of the distribution
licensee to develop and maintain an efficient distribution system and to provide, if
required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the applicants
premises.
Responding to the objections, MSEDCL has admitted that distribution licensee has
to provide electric line or electric plant in case of necessity. However, they have
misinterpreted Section 45 of the Act. As per MSEDCL, Section 45 of the Act
provides that consumer has to pay the cost of electric plant provided by the licensee.
Section 45 of the Act basically covers tariff related charges such as fixed charges
and rent or other charges in respect of meter or electric plant provided by the
distribution licensee.
As regards recovery of expenditure incurred for providing electric plant or electric
line, separate provision is made under Section 46 which reads as under.
The State Commission may, by regulations, authorize a distribution licensee to
charge from a person requiring a supply of electricity in pursuance of section 43 any
expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical plant used
for the purpose of giving that supply.
As per this Section, powers are vested with the Commission to make Regulations to
decide the principles and mechanism for charging consumer for expenses incurred in
providing infrastructure i.e. electric line or electric plant used for giving supply to
respective consumer.
Expenses that are incurred by a licensee while providing supply and which are akin to
"service-line", may be charged by licensees from consumers, as specifically approved
by the Commission while according its approval to the schedule of charges in terms
of Section 46 of the EA, 2003 read with the Electricity Supply Code. The expenses
reasonably incurred by licensees in connecting a service line with the distributing
main (or portion of the main) are to form part of the schedule of charges which are
specifically required to be approved by the Commission while according its approval
in terms of Section 46 of the EA, 2003 read with the Electricity Supply Code.
However, expenses that a licensee incurs for putting the necessary electric lines
connecting the transmission boundary to the distribution mains, should be included in
the cost of fixed assets for the purposes of arriving at the capital base during the
process of determination of annual revenue requirement of the licensee under Section
45 read with Section 62 of the EA, 2003 and cannot be charged by licensees under
their schedule of charges. In other words, the licensee cannot be allowed to levy
fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied, without such
charges being approved by the Commission under the provisions of Section 62 of the
EA, 2003. Such expenses for putting the necessary electric lines connecting the
transmission boundary to the distribution mains, being a fixed charge cannot be
levied under the schedule of charges which follow a separate ARR and tariff
determination process under Section 46 of the EA, 2003 read with Section 62 of EA,
2003.
Page 28 of 40

While there is no denial that expenditure on infrastructure needs to be adequately


compensated to the licensee, it is necessary to have a clear demarcation or limit to
pass on the burden to the individual consumer. The extent to which the cost is to be
recovered has already been stipulated in the Regulation 3.3.2 of Supply Code
Regulations. As per the principles laid down in this Regulation, the licensee shall be
authorized to recover all expenses reasonably incurred on works for laying service
line from the distribution mains to the applicants premises. MSEDCL has separately
proposed to recover these charges under the head SCC and Commission has approved
the same subject to certain validation/modifications and on rationalisation.
As regards expenditure incurred on 33kV & 11kV infrastructure beyond distribution
mains, which forms a distinct part of wheeling business i.e. system of wires and
associated facilities, there is no provision in the Supply Code Regulations allowing
licensee to recover it from prospective consumers. The expenditure incurred on
upstream of the distribution mains may be claimed through ARR. The Commission,
therefore rejects the proposal, devoid of any legal authority, of MSEDCL to recover
SLC from the prospective consumers except in cases of consumers requiring
dedicated distribution facility.
MSEDCL in their response has explained the differential service line charges for
Rural Urban and Kuchha - Pukka structures stating that this is the concession
offered by MSEDCL to a weaker section of the society so that they are able to have
access to the electricity as stipulated under the National Electricity Policy and Plan.
This social aspect has already been taken care of by Ministry of Power, Government
of India by introducing schemes like Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana.
However, Section 62(3) of the Act clearly stipulates that The Appropriate
Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue
preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the
consumers load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption..
MSEDCL has proposed separate service line charges for MHADA, CIDCO colonies
etc. They have also proposed service line charges for supply to agricultural pumps
through conventional system and through HVDS. However since the levy of SLC to
consumer is totally disallowed, the Commission does not find it necessary to go into
merits and details of calculations /work sheet submitted by MSEDCL related to
Service Line Charges to different categories of consumers.

7)

Miscellaneous & General Charges

i)

Installation testing fee:

Regulation 9 of supply code provides that the wiring of consumers premises shall
conform to the standards specified in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. As per Rule
47, it is the duty of the supplier to inspect & test applicants installation before
connecting the supply. As per Rule 53(1), the cost of first inspection & testing of a
consumers installation carried out in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 47 shall be
borne by the supplier & the cost of every subsequent inspection & test shall be borne
by the consumer.

Page 29 of 40

In view of above, the Commission directs MSEDCL not to charge any amount for
first inspection and testing of consumers installation at the time of giving new
connection. For all the subsequent tests & inspection of the consumers installation as
per the provisions under rule 53 of I E Rules, 1956, the charges proposed by
MSEDCL are approved. MSEDCL should provide copy of the report of Installation
testing to the concerned consumer.
ii) Reconnection Charges:
Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the licensee to discontinue electric
supply to the consumer for non- payment of electricity bills after following the due
procedure laid down under the Act. It further says that the supply can be discontinued
until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting
off and reconnecting the supply, has been paid.
MSEDCL has not furnished any details about average cost incurred in disconnection
and reconnection of the supply. Instead MSEDCL in their response dated 10 th April
2006 has mentioned that higher reconnection charges have been proposed to motivate
the consumers to pay their energy bills on time. MSEDCL is of the opinion that such
charges may up to certain extent, act as a deterrent factor and encourage the
consumers for prompt payment. However, the Commission is of the opinion that
timely disconnection of supply for default against valid dues itself would work as
deterrent to the consumer. Considering the provision in the Act, wherein it is
expressly mentioned that the licensee can recover the cost incurred for cutting of and
reconnecting supply, the irrational high charges as proposed by MSEDCL are not
justified. MSEDCL has not furnished any calculations about the cost involved in
disconnection and reconnection. The Commission views the existing charges to be
reasonable and reflecting the cost involved. However, in order to further rationalize
the charges, Commission directs MSEDCL to recover reconnection charges as
indicated in Annexure-4.
iii) Changing location of the meters within the same premise:
Considering the average cost of material and labour involved in shifting of meter, the
normative charges of Rs. 100/- proposed by MSEDCL appears to be reasonable and
the Commission approves the proposed charges with the condition that this should
cover the total cost including the cost of material, labour, all other costs etc. required
for changing the location of the meter.
The charges for changing the location of meter within the premise will be applicable
only in cases where the shifting is to be done at the request of the consumer.
However, when MSEDCL desires to have the location changed, then the cost of such
shifting shall be entirely borne by MSEDCL.

Page 30 of 40

iv) Testing of meters:


Supply Code Regulation 14.4 covers testing & maintenance of meters. As per
regulation 14.4.1, the distribution licensee shall be responsible for periodic testing &
maintenance of all consumers meters.
As per regulation 14.4.2, the consumer may, upon payment of such testing charges as
may be approved by the Commission under regulation 18, request the distribution
licensee to test accuracy of the meter.
As per regulation 14.4.3, the distribution licensee shall provide a copy of meter test
report within a period of two months from the date of request for the testing of the
meter by the consumer.
As per regulation 14.4.4, in the event of the meter being tested & found beyond the
limits of accuracy as prescribed under Regulation 8 of CEA (Installation & Operation
of Meters) Regulation, 2006 under section 55 of the Act, the distribution licensee
shall refund the testing charges paid by the consumer & adjust the amount of bill in
accordance with the results of the test. Subject to the above provisions in the Supply
Code Regulations, the Commission approves the charges for testing of meters as
proposed by MSEDCL.
The testing charges approved shall be applicable only in case the consumer requests
the Licensee to test the meter as mentioned above, and the expenditure towards first
testing prior to release of new connection (even if the meter is purchased by the
consumer) and all routine testing as per Regulation 14.4.1 shall be borne by
MSEDCL.
v) Replacement of meter cards for HT consumers:
MSEDCL has reportedly installed TOD meters to all HT consumers. The meters have
data storage with downloading features and data can be collected as and when
required. In view of above separate meter card may not be necessary. However, if the
MSEDCL intends to continue this practice of maintaining the cards for HT consumer,
they may do so in their own commercial interest at their own cost since such HT
consumers are of higher revenue potential for MSEDCL. In view of above, the
Commission rejects the proposed charges for replacement of meter card for HT
consumer.
vi) Penalty for cheque bouncing:
When a cheque is dishonoured, it is considered to be a serious offence as per Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issuer of such cheque can also face legal
action. As MSEDCL is not an authority to impose any punishment for such offence
under the law, they are not authorized to levy any Penal charges. However, they may
recover charges towards bank charges and administration expenses towards bouncing
of cheque. The cheque bouncing charges varies from bank to bank and are in the
range of Rs. 25/- (Rupees twenty five) to Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty).
The Commission, therefore approves the charges towards compensation of bank
charges and MSEDCLs administrative charges as indicated in Annexure-4.

Page 31 of 40

vii) Temporary meters /hiring of meters charges:


Regulation 3.3.6 empowers the licensee to recover all expenses reasonably incurred
for the purpose of giving temporary supply & for the purpose of discontinuance of
such temporary supply. Since the entire cost for temporary connection is to be borne
by consumer, the Commission rejects the proposed charges for hiring of meter in case
of Temporary connection.
viii) Penalty for Harmonics variation above normal limits:
As the Penalty for Harmonics is a tariff related issue like that of power factor, the
Commission in absence of any substantiated proposal, does not accept proposed penal
charges at this stage.
ix) Hiring charges for CT/PT unit, CT metering cabinet & HT metering cabinet,
Transformers & capacitors; Testing of LT CTs, CTPT unit, relays, 11/22kV
switchgears, transformers, transformer oil and LT & HT capacitors; Charges
for standby transformer:
Hiring charges are optional charges and will be presumably applicable only when any
of the equipment owned by the consumer fails and he opts under exigent condition to
hire the equipment from MSEDCL. MSEDCL has not included these items in their
Terms & Conditions Of Supply. Though leasing of equipments on hire basis in
exigencies would be beneficial to both i.e. consumer and the licensee, these items are
matters of mutual consent of MSEDCL and consumer. The Commission, therefore
does not consider these items as a part of Schedule of Charges as these items fall
under non-regulatory services resulting in other income for the Licensee.

8) Application registration and processing charges:


As per Supply code regulation 4, in respect of Application for supply, the applicant is
required to submit various documents and details. Besides, as per regulation no.
4.1(ix), consumer is required to pay fee for processing the application or receipt
thereof, based on schedule of charges approved by the Commission under regulation
18.
Following activities are involved in processing the application as mentioned in
Regulation 5 of Supply Code:
i)
study of technical requirements of giving supply,
ii)
inspect the premises,
iii)
joint inspection along with an applicant to fix the position of service, mains,
meters, sanction of load, etc.
However, all the above activities fall under normal activities of the Licensees staff.
As the expenditure on the staff is covered under ARR, the Processing fee should not
include the expenditure towards the staff employed for processing the application to
avoid double accounting. At the same time the Commission feels that there should be
a minimum barrier to discourage frivolous or non-serious consumers.
In view of above, the Commission allows MSEDCL to collect a token amount
towards the application processing or receipt thereof as indicated in Annexure-5.

Page 32 of 40

Applicability & Validity:


The entire Schedule of Charges as approved by the Commission shall be applicable
with effect from September 8, 2006 and will continue to remain in force till further
orders.
MSEDCL is directed to promptly disseminate instructions upto sub-division level to
stop recovering charges at existing rates & issue necessary commercial circular
(vetted by the Commission) within 7 days from the date of this order. This circular so
dispatched should also be made available on MSEDCLs website.

Sd/(S. B. Kulkarni)
Member

Sd/(A. Velayutham)
Member

Sd/(Dr. Pramod Deo)


Chairman, MERC

(Malini Shankar)
Secretary, MERC

Page 33 of 40

APPENDIX -I
List of Objectors to the MSEDCLs Schedule of Charges

Sr. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

Name & address of the objector


Dr. Ashok Pendse, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Mumbai
Shri R. B. Goenka, Vidarbha Industries Association, Nagpur
Shri S.D Damle, Pune
Secretary, Lok Sanskriti, Kalyan
Shri Vinayak Shrikrishna Mahajan, Ratnagiri.
Bapuji B. Ghorpade, Social Activist, Dist. Kolhapur
Shri Chandulal J. Sumaria, Shri Halari Powerloom Owners &
Weavers Association, Thane.
Shri Damodar Nalla, Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Sangh
Shri Pratap Hogade, Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak
Sanghatana, Ichhalkaranji, Kolhapur
Shri Ravikant Madan Raut, Chaul Raut Ali, Taluka Alibag.
Shri Anil Gachke, Electrical Contractors Association of
Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Shri Sanjeev Potdar, Kolhapur Engineering Association,
Kolhapur
Shri Sunil Bhattase, President, Laxmi Industrial
Manufacturers Association, Kolhapur
Shri V. B. Jain, Co-Operative Industrial Estate Ltd., Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon.
Shri Shaikeel Ansari, Maharashtra Electricity Consumers
Association, Bhivandi
Shri Pradeep Bhide, Vice President, Ispat Industries Limited
Shri Satish Khare, Nagpur
Shri Ashok Dhivre, The Consumers Right Protection,
Education and Research Council, Sakri Road, Dhule.
Shri Maulana Shakeel Ahmed Vazir Jawahar, The Malegaon
Powerloom & Sarvajanik Veej Grahak Sangh, Malegaon,
Nashik.
Shri Er. Shahid Ansari, President, The Malegaon Industries &
Powerloom Manufacturers Association, Malegaon, Nashik
Shri Sajid Ansari, President, Malegaon Powerloom Udyog
Viks Samitee, Malegaon, Nashik.
Shri Nimba Kadam, President, Malegaon Powerloom
Federation Committee, Malegaon.
Shri Ansari Neerul Amin Mohamed Sabir, The Industrial Cooperative Association Ltd., Malegaon
Page 34 of 40

Sr. No. Name & address of the objector


24
Shri Madhukar Brahmankar, Nashik Industries &
Manufacturers Association, Nashik.
25
Shri Shaikh Yusuf Mohammad, Nashik Road, Nashik
26
Shri Rajaram Bapusaheb Patil, Chairman, Kolhapur Zilla
Dalap-Kandap Girni MalakSangh, Kolhapur.
27
Shri Tukaram Govind Jadhav, Khanapur, Sangli
28
Shri More Sachin Eknath, Pune
29
Shri M.B. Kulkarni, Asst G..M., Tata Motors Ltd., Pune.
30
Shri B.R. Khedkar, Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune
31
Shri Ujwalraj Joshi, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Thane
Division, Thane.
32
Shri Faizan Ahmed Azami, Chairman, Maharashtra State
Powerloom Federation, Bhiwandi.
33
Shri Pankaj D. Muni / Sri Kamlesh Shah / Sunil J. Saraf, Vile
Parle, Mumbai
34
The Secretary, Hamdard Grahak Panchayat, Malegaon
Branch, Nashik.
35
Secretary, The Malegaon Consumers Complaints Satisfaction
Society, Malegaon
36
Shri Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rasheed, Mayor, Malegaon
Municipal Corporation, Malegaon.
37
Shri Shrikant Khadilkar, Veej Grahak Samitee, Nashik
38
Shri Ravi Anand, Electricity Consumers Association
39
Shri Lalji K. Dwivedi, Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.,
Chinchwad, Pune.
40
Shri Laxman Ganpat Gunavare, Shetkari Parishad, Pune.
41
Shri Sudhir T. Badgujar, Mahatma Phule Multipurpose
Krishak Mandal, Dhule.
42
R.R. Atkale, Pune
43
Shri Ashwin Treasurer, Thane Small Scale Industries
Association
44
Shri Hemant J. Ganpat

Page 35 of 40