Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Tel No 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 022 22163976 E-mail mercindia@mercgovin Website: wwwmercindiaorgin/wwwmercgovin Case No 135 of 2013 In the matter of Petition filed by M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading company for seeking relief for not providing permission by MSEDCL for availing Open Access in favour of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Shri Vijay L Sonavane, Member Smt Chandra Iyengar, Member In the Matter of : (1) M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons Petitioner 1 (2) M/s Shridevi Trading Company Petitioner 2 V/s (1) SE (TRC), MSEDCL Respondent 1 (2) M/s Inorbit Malls(I) Pvt Ltd Respondent 2 Representative/Advocate for the Petitioner (s) Advocate Representative/Advocate for the Respondent (s) : Shri SCKarandikar, : Shri Varun Pathak, Advocate ORDER Date: 16 January, 2014 M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading Company (herein after referred as Petitioners) filed a Petition on an affidavit on 30 August, 2013, for seeking relief for not providing permission by MSEDCL for availing Open Access in favour of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, under subsection (47) of Section 2 read with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations made there under MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 1 of 13
2 The prayers of the Petitioners are as follows: (i) The respondent be directed to grant Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd from 01-04-2013 to 31-03-2014 (ii) All other just and equitable reliefs be granted to the Petitioner for the effective adjudication of this case 3 The facts of the petition submitted by Petitioners have been summarized below: a Petitioners are a Partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, has set up a Wind-Mill (125 MW each) at Sadawaghpur, Tal- Patan, Dist-Satara b M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is company where electricity is being consumed at plot No39/1 Sector 30 A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai c MSEDCL has granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of 01-04-2012 to 31-03-2013 to avail power from Petitioner No1 & 2 vide letter dated 5 September 2012 and 29 August 2012 respectively d M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd again applied for Open Access permission on 30 January 2013 well in advance to expiry of earlier permission MSEDCL, vide email dated 03 August 2013 has informed that Open Access permission cannot be granted e Petitioner has submitted that reasons given by the respondent for refusal of the permission were unjust and devoid of legal merits Petitioners have further submitted that they have generated around 3797 Lakhs units and injected the same in the distribution network of MSEDCL 4 The Commission, vide notice dated 23 October, 2013, scheduled a hearing in the matter on 8 November 2013 During the hearing, Shri SC Karandikar appeared on behalf of Petitioners and Shri Varun Pathak, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent In the said hearing, the Commission directed MSEDCL to submit its response to the Open Access application of the Petitioners with copy to office of the Commission and further directed to submit its additional say on Affidavit to the Petition within 7 days The commission also directed to Petitioners to submit rejoinder, if any, within a week s time after receipt of reply from MSEDCL 5 Pursuant to the directions given by the Commission, MSEDCL filed additional submission on 14 November, 2013, the details of which are summarized as below: a Present petition has been filed by the generating companies, whereas Open Access application was filed by the consumer, therefore rejection of Open Access application by answering Respondent has to be understood in the context of ultimate consumer and not the generator who is wind energy generator b The Hon ble Appellate Tribunal in its Judgment dated 3 October, 2012 in Appeal No193 of 2011, DLF Utilities Ltd versus HERC & others has held that MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 2 of 13
supply in the building by generating company to the tenants of the building amounts to sub-distribution and such is contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 c MSEDCL had erroneously allowed Open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd that there cannot be equality in illegality However, an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated merely because it was being done in the past d MSEDCL has submitted that whatever units that have been pumped by the petitioners are accounted for and they shall get returns on the same in accordance with the law of land e MSEDCL has submitted that the total contract demand of connections /consumer of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd of total load requirement of all its occupants is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand f MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks to further sub distribution of power availed from the Petitioners, the same cannot be considered own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005 6 In compliance to the directions given by the Commission, Petitioner No1 submitted rejoinder to the MSEDCL submission on 6 December, 2013, the details of which are summarized as below:- a MSEDCL has wrongly relied on the judgment of Appellate Tribunal The rationale laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to present case b MSEDCL is in reluctant to give various single phases/three phase LT connections in one building for the operational difficulties and is persuading the consumers to opt for single HT connection However the submissions on behalf of MSEDCL in this case are contrary to its conduct c MSEDCL has conveniently kept mum about delay in refusing the permission However due to inordinate delay of MSEDCL the petitioner has lost his opportunity to find another open Access consumer 7 The Commission, vide notice dated 3 December, 2013, scheduled further hearing in the matter on 11 December 2013 During the hearing, Shri SC Karandikar appeared on behalf Petitioners and Ms Deepa Chavan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent In the said hearing, Commission directed Petitioners and Respondents to file their submissions within 10 days 8 In Compliance to the direction given by Commission vide daily Order dated 11 December, 2013, MSEDCL has submitted their submission on 26 December 2013, the details of which are summarized as below: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 3 of 13
a MSEDCL does not have any issues with petitioners availing supply to other consumers, but not to the consumers of single point supply such as mall/complexes b First time, the Commission directed that HT industrial and commercial category consumers undertaking sub distribution to mixed load would have to either operate through a franchisee route or take individual connection in ARR and tariff for licensee for FY 2005-06 and 2006-07 vide Order dated 3 October 2006 in case No 25 of 2005 and case No53 of 2005 (REL) c The Commission again vide its Order dated 24 May 2010, in case No62 of 2009 (MSEDCL) reiterated its stand taken in respect of single point supply d The Commission passed the Order in case No75 of 2007 directing all the distribution licensees to implement either of the options of the franchisee or individual connection module for industrial and commercial category consumers who undertake sub distribution to mixed load, within one year e Two appeals were filed before the Hon ble ATE challenging the Commission s Order in Case No 75 of 2007 Hon ble ATE in the Judgment stated that single point supply in the context in which parties have understood the matter should be done away with for all time to come by making proper arrangements in the alternative suggested in the Commission s Order The Commission was further directed to enforce the said Order within the period of six months from the date of Hon ble ATE Judgment f The Maratha Chamber of Commerce challenged the Hon ble APTEL judgement dated 11 July, 2011 in Hon ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No8415 of 2010 wherein NO STAY on said order dated 11 July, 2011 of APTEL in Appeal No155 and 156 of 2010 was given g MSEDCL had erroneously allowed the Open Access for availing supply through Petitioners h Section 12 of Electricity Act,2003 only allows authorised persons to transmit,supply and distribute electricity and section 14 provides that no to transmit,supply and distribute electricity the Commission grants license i Open Access Application of Petitioners only has been rejected by the MSEDCL for further supplying to malls/complexes and as such the Petitioners were always free to supply to any other consumer through Open Access Commission s Analysis and Ruling:- 9 Having heard the Petitioners and Respondent and after considering all the documents available on the record, the Commission observes that:- MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 4 of 13
i Petitioners are wind generators with their wind generation facility located at Satara Petitioners have entered into power sale agreement with M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for supplying wind power to common area of Inorbit Mall MSEDCL is a respondent No 2 in the matter M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is a consumer of MSEDCL and respondent No1 in the matter ii iii iv MSEDCL had granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013 As M/s Inorbit Mall was desirous to continue with the facility, it again applied for open Access to MSEDCL well in advance prior to expiry of the earlier permission Vide E- mail dated 3 August, 2013 and letter dated 6 September, 2013, MSEDCL informed the Petitioner that the application for grant of open Access cannot be processed for third party sell to commercial complexes / malls The permission for open Access has been denied by MSEDCL stating the reason that in case of commercial complexes / malls, single point HT supply is availed and it is extended to other entities in same premise Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not allow such extension of supply to other entities MSEDCL has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd MSEDCL has contended that the total contract demand of all occupants of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand MSEDCL further mentioned that as per Regulation 3 of MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005, individual legal entities of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, ie its tenants or occupants do not meet the eligible criteria for Open Access v MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks further sub distribution of power availed from the petitioners, the same cannot be considered as own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access ) Regulations, 2005 10 The Commission notes that the issue that is to be dealt with in this Petition is regarding the supply by distribution licensee on a single point connection to commercial premises such as multiplexes, malls etc Key issues to be addressed here are about the permission of Open Access by the Distribution Licensees to consumer for all its other occupants in such premises and further sub-distribution within commercial premises by the consumers receiving supply on single point connection 11 The Commission in its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 has addressed the issue of supply on single point connections The Commission has directed that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls The Commission has provided certain guiding principles for Distribution Franchisee model MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 5 of 13
to be adopted for single point connections The relevant Paras of the Order dated 24 May, 2010 are reproduced below: 7 i) As regards MSEDCL's prayer for approval of the MoU route for appointment of Distribution Franchisee, the Commission holds that it is for the Distribution Licensee to adopt any method for selecting the Distribution Franchisee on such terms and conditions as it deems fit, and the Commission has no jurisdiction to approve either the process or the Party selected by the Distribution Licensee However, as expressed by the stakeholders, the Commission is of the view that ideally, the Distribution Franchisee should be selected and appointed through a competitive bidding process to ensure complete transparency and competition iv) MSEDCL has proposed the terms and conditions of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement, which is a matter to be decided by each Licensee However, the Commission feels that every Distribution Licensee should evolve a Distribution Franchisee Agreement, which should be common to all its Franchisees selected through MoU route, and hence, non-discriminatory Also, a Distribution Franchisee cannot refuse if either the Developer or one of the Group of consumers comes forward to become a Franchisee The Commission further directs that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to all the following categories: a) Residential colonies b) Commercial buildings c) Multiplexes and malls (Emphasis added) d) Townships e) Other single point consumers like Railways, Defence, etc v) Over the past two to three years, the Commission has come across similar problems primarily in the case of existing Commercial and Office Complexes regarding supply at single point for distribution to mixed loads In such cases, the distribution licensees have neither installed the individual meters nor the subdistribution of electricity is being regulated in any manner Though the Commission has directed the licensees to formulate a practical solution for this problem, there has not been any significant progress Hence, the Commission is of the view that the practical solution being considered in the present case should be adopted for all such cases of supply at single point for further distribution to mixed loads, wherein one agency can be appointed as the Distribution Franchisee through the MoU route, and can supply to the individual users within the complex This will ensure that all such cases will come squarely within the provisions of the EA 2003, which is not the case now (Emphasis added) MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 6 of 13
vi) vii) However, in respect of Distribution Franchisees to be selected through the competitive bidding process, the licensees are free to prepare separate terms and conditions for each Franchisee Agreement, on a case by case basis It may be noted that in either case, the retail consumers cannot be charged a tariff higher or lower than that approved by the Commission for the same category of consumers in that licence area, and also, the responsibility of ensuring conformance with Standards of Performance, safety and all other relevant Regulations rests with the respective Licensees As regards availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power, the Commission holds that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be fettered in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding (Emphasis added) 12 The issue of supply on single point to commercial building / industrial complexes for mixed load was again addressed by the Commission in its Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Commission observed that the dispensation as set out in the Commission s Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases The relevant extract of the Order is reproduced below: 29 The Commission noted that various complexes and multi storey buildings are coming up with number of consumers and common facilities within a complex or a building In such cases, it may be difficult and/or impracticable for Distribution Licensee to give supply to every consumer individually, especially if they are required to be connected at HT level The Commission has addressed this issue in its order dated May 24, 2010 in the matter of MSEDCL s Petition for In principle approval of MoU route for selection of Distribution Franchisee (Case No62 of 2009) and is of the view that the same dispensation as set out in Para 7 of the Commission order dated May 24, 2010 in the Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases 30With the dispensation, the Commission directs that within one year from the date of this order, all distribution licensees in the State should enter into Franchise agreement with willing single point consumers either through MoU or Competitive bidding basis 13 An Appeal (Appeal No 155 of 2010 and Appeal No 156 of 2010) was preferred by the Mahratta Chamber of Commerce before the Hon ble Tribunal against the Commission s Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 Hon ble Tribunal passed the Judgment in the matter on 11 July, 2011 upholding the Commission s directions The relevant para is reproduced below: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 7 of 13
26 In the ultimate analysis, we are to observe that the clarifications sought for on the queries by the appellants were given by the Commission and it is in this Tribunal that the queries were multiplied requiring answer from us but these queries are not subject-matter of any dispute and we do not find any fault with the order of the Commission 27 As we seriously mean that single point supply in the context in which the parties have understood the matter should be done away with for all time to come by making proper arrangements in the alternative as suggested in the Commission s impugned order we direct the Commission to enforce its order within a period of six months from the date of this order That is, the parties get six months time for implementation of the Commission s order 14 In view of the directions from Hon ble Tribunal, the Commission initiated Sou motu proceedings in Case No 108 of 2011 for implementing the directions issued by Hon ble Tribunal The Commission, in the Order provided a phase wise implementation program for enforcement and implementation of the Order dated 1 June 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 Relevant para of the Order is reproduced below: 10 (ii) The Commission is of the view that the Commission could see to the enforcement and implementation of its Order dated 1st June 2010, by a phase wise implementation program as under: (A) The Distribution Licensees shall immediately, take steps to issue notices in newspapers in regard to the direction of the Hon ble Tribunal to implement the Commission s order with respect to single point supply The Distribution Licensees shall provide as much information sou motu to the public through various means of communications, including internet, so that information is disseminated widely and in such form and manner (through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means which is easily Accessible to the public (B) Simultaneously, the Distribution Licensees shall upload Model Franchisee Agreement on their Website, arranging special campaign, correspondence with such consumers etc (C) The Distribution Licensees shall within two months of this Order, file a report before the Commission on the status of single point supply in their respective areas; In view of above, the Commission directs that implementation of its Order dated 1st June 2010 and direction of the Hon ble Tribunal in its judgment dated 11th July, 2011 shall not be delayed on the ground that Franchisee Agreement is required to be approved by the Commission The Distribution Licensees should follow the guiding principles, herein below extracted, of the Commission in the Order dated 24th May 2010 while formulating Franchisee Agreements: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 8 of 13
15 Analysis of above Orders of the Commission makes it clear that the Commission has adequately addressed the issues relating to supply on single point connections Necessary guiding principles for adopting the Distribution Franchisee model for single point supply cases have also been issued by the Commission in its earlier Orders 16 As explained in para 11 above, the Commission has directed vide its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Further said para also reveals that the Commission has dealt with the issue regarding availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power In the said Order, the Commission has held that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be restricted in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 17 In spite of Commission s guiding principles, directions for implementation of Distribution Franchisee Model, the Commission observes that there appears to be a lack of clarity as MSEDCL itself has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Accordingly, in view of the lack of clarity on the issue, MSEDCL need to issue a circular for implementation of Commission s directions and guiding principles on Distribution Franchisee model and provide necessary clarifications to all the stakeholders therein 18 Various aspects such as eligibility of Distribution Franchisee to source power on behalf of other occupants of the premise, allowing sub-distribution after entering into Distribution Franchisee Agreement, rights of individual occupier to get supply from Distribution licensee, rights of 1 MW and above consumer to avail Open Access etc can be a part of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement between the Distribution Licensee and the concerned Franchisee These aspects need to be clarified by MSEDCL in its circular 19 In view of above, MSEDCL is directed to issue a Circular on Franchisee agreement for single point supply to its field officers in line with directives of the Commission s Order dated 3 October, 2011 in Case No 108 of 2011, Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 and Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, clarifying all necessary aspects relating to the single point connections 20 As explained at para 11, the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State is available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Therefore, M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd needs to enter into Distribution Franchisee Agreement with MSEDCL Operations of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd as a Distribution Franchisee and its rights and responsibilities shall be governed by the MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 9 of 13
terms and conditions of Distribution Franchisee Agreement Further, the Commission is of the view that certain steps are required to be followed before M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd becomes eligible for open access to source the power Issuing the circular on Distribution Franchisee Agreement could be the first step Accordingly, till the time the circular is issued, MSEDCL is directed to permit Open Access permission to the Petitioners 21 MSEDCL is directed to expeditiously issue the circular in the above matter Summary of Findings: 22 Petitioners are wind generators and have entered into power sale agreement with M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd which is a consumer of MSEDCL M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is Respondent No2 and MSEDCL is Respondent No1 in the matter 23 MSEDCL had granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013 As M/s Inorbit Mall was desirous to continue with the facility, it again applied for open Access to MSEDCL well in advance prior to expiry of the earlier permission Vide E-mail dated 3 August, 2013 and letter dated 6 September, 2013, MSEDCL informed the Petitioner that the application for grant of open Access cannot be processed for third party sell to commercial complexes / malls 24 The permission for open Access has been denied by MSEDCL stating the reason that in case of commercial complexes / malls, single point HT supply is availed and it is extended to other entities in same premise Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not allow such extension of supply to other entities 25 MSEDCL has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd MSEDCL has contended that the total contract demand of all occupants of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand MSEDCL further mentioned that as per Regulation 3 of MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005, individual legal entities of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, ie its tenants or occupants do not meet the eligible criteria for Open Access 26 MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks further sub distribution of power availed from the petitioner, the same cannot be considered as own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access ) Regulations, 2005 27 The Commission notes that the issue that is to be dealt with in this Petition is regarding the supply by distribution licensee on a single point connection to commercial premises such as multiplexes, malls etc Key issues to be addressed here are about the permission of Open Access by the Distribution Licensees to consumer for all its other occupants in such premises and further sub- MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 10 of 13
distribution within commercial premises by the consumers receiving supply on single point connection 28 The Commission in its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, has addressed the issue of supply on single point connections The Commission has directed that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and Malls The Commission has provided certain guiding principles for Distribution Franchisee model to be adopted for single point connections The relevant Para of the Order dated 24 May, 2010 is reproduced below: 7 iv) The Commission further directs that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to all the following categories: a) Residential colonies b) Commercial buildings c) Multiplexes and malls vii) As regards availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power, the Commission holds that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be fettered in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 29 The issue of supply on single point to commercial building / industrial complexes for mixed load was again dealt with by the Commission in its Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Commission observed that the dispensation as set out in the Commission s Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases The relevant extract of the Order is reproduced below: 30 With the dispensation, the Commission directs that within one year from the date of this order, all distribution licensees in the State should enter into Franchise agreement with willing single point consumers either through MoU or Competitive bidding basis 30 Hon ble Tribunal upheld the Commission s Order dated 11 July, 2011 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Hon ble ATE further directed the Commission to enforce the aforesaid Order within six months from the date of Judgement of Tribunal MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 11 of 13
31 In view of the directions from Hon ble Tribunal, the Commission initiated Sou motu proceedings in Case No 108 of 2011 for implementing the directions issued by Hon ble Tribunal The Commission, in the Order provided a phase wise implementation program for enforcement and implementation of the Order dated 1 June 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 32 Analysis of above Orders of the Commission makes it clear that the Commission has adequately addressed the issues relating to supply on single point connections Necessary guiding principles for adopting the Distribution Franchisee model for single point supply cases have also been issued by the Commission in its earlier Orders 33 As explained in para 11 above, the Commission has directed vide its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Further, said para also reveals that the Commission has dealt with the issue regarding availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power In the said Order, the Commission has held that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be restricted in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 34 In spite of Commission s guiding principles, directions for implementation of Distribution Franchisee Model, the Commission observes that there appears to be a lack of clarity as MSEDCL itself has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Accordingly, in view of the lack of clarity on the issue, MSEDCL need to issue a circular for implementation of Commission s directions and guiding principles on Distribution Franchisee model and provide necessary clarifications to all the stakeholders therein 35 Various aspects such as eligibility of Distribution Franchisee to source power on behalf of other occupants of the premise, allowing sub-distribution after entering into Distribution Franchisee Agreement, rights of individual occupier to get supply from Distribution licensee, rights of 1 MW and above consumer to avail Open Access etc can be a part of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement between the Distribution Licensee and the concerned Franchisee These aspects need to be clarified by MSEDCL in its circular 36 In view of above, MSEDCL is directed to issue a Circular on Franchisee agreement for single point supply to its field officers in line with directives of the Commission s Order dated 3 October, 2011 in Case No 108 of 2011, Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 and Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, clarifying all necessary aspects relating to the single point connections MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 12 of 13
37 As explained at para 11, the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State is available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Therefore, M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd needs to enter into Distribution Franchisee Agreement with MSEDCL Operations of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd as a Distribution Franchisee and its rights and responsibilities shall be governed by the terms and conditions of Distribution Franchisee Agreement Further, the Commission is of the view that certain steps are required to be followed before M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd becomes eligible for open access to source the power Issuing the circular on Distribution Franchisee Agreement could be the first step Accordingly, till the time the circular is issued, MSEDCL is directed to permit Open Access permission to the Petitioners 38 MSEDCL is directed to expeditiously issue the circular in the above matter With the above, the Petition filed by M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading company in Case No 135 of 2013 stands disposed off Sd/- (Chandra Iyengar) Member Sd/- (Vijay L Sonavane) Member MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 13 of 13