* 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
Post a Comment