MERC dismisses MIA petition over non-appearance at hearing


* MIHAN Industries Association had filed a petition before MERC seeking directions regarding supply of power to industries in MIHAN-SEZ area
By Kartik Lokhande 
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has dismissed the petition of MIHAN Industries Association (MIA) regarding power supply to industries in MIHAN-SEZ area, on the ground of ‘non-appearance of the petitioner’ at the hearing held on October 9 in Mumbai.
MERC held its hearing on October 9 in Mumbai. Adv Samir Malik represented MADC, and Adv Satish Shrikhande appeared on behalf of AMNEPL. However, surprisingly, no advocate or authorised representative appeared on behalf of MIA. In its order dated October 27, MERC observed that it had not received any communication in this regard from MIA.
Relying on Regulation 70 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, MERC dismissed the petition of MIA for ‘non-appearance of the petitioner’. Regulation 70 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, lays down the procedure to be followed if any party involved does not appear at the hearing. As per the Regulation 70, if a party does not appear or shows no sufficient cause for non-appearance, MERC may dismiss the application if he is applicant or proceed ex-parte against such party if it is the opponent, respondent, or any other party.
This has come as a surprise for many as MIA had cried foul over AMNEPL disconnecting the power supply to industries in MIHAN-SEZ area. MIA had also made MADC and MSEDCL as respondents, holding them responsible for the trouble over power supply to industries as MADC is developer of MIHAN-SEZ area and MSEDCL is state-run power distribution utility.
On May 16 earlier this year, MIA had filed a petition before MERC seeking directions regarding power supply to industries in MIHAN-SEZ area. MIA had urged MERC to allow the petition and direct Maharashtra Airport Development Company (MADC) -- the developer of MIHAN-SEZ -- to provide ‘uninterrupted power supply’ to the industries in MIHAN-SEZ area. Besides, the petitioner Association had sought directions to MADC to immediately restore power supply efficiently and effectively to industries that had not opted to avail power supply of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL).
Also, MIA had sought directions to MADC to procure power from Abhijeet MADC Nagpur Energy Private Limited (AMNEPL) and supply to consumers or alternatively direct MADC to procure power from MSEDCL to supply it to consumers. MIA had filed the petition following disconnection of power made by MADC and AMNEPL, and had prayed before MERC to declare this disconnection as ‘illegal’. Another demand of MIA was holding and declaring AMNEPL and MADC as ‘guilty of willful breach’ of MERC orders in a previous case, and also suspending distribution licence of MADC. MIA had even sought directions to Director General of Police of State CID to investigate into the affairs and functioning of MADC and AMNEPL. The MIA had filed the petition after AMNEPL stopped power supply to industries in MIHAN-SEZ area on April 30, 2014.
Countering the submissions of MIA, MADC had stated in its reply before MERC on August 25 that MIA was ‘unregistered and unincorporated association’ and hence the petition was not maintainable. “Further, MIA is guilty of forum shopping and concealment of material facts. MIA has filed a similar petition before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which is sub-judice and under active consideration,” stated MADC. Also, MADC blamed AMNEPL stating that the ‘peculiar situation’ had arisen from ‘defaults committed by AMNEPL’. 

(Published in The Hitavada CityLine on October 30, 2014) 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Chanda boy Dr Vipin Itankar is UPSC topper in State

Hinganghat: Here rests the great surveyor of India...

Eknath Ranade, the man with ‘Rock’ solid determination