Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Download details
REVIEW PETITION No. RP 05/2019 in APPEAL PETITION No. P/045/2019 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam
The Review Petitioner is the respondent in Appeal No. P/045/2019. The review respondent is a consumer under the Electrical Section, Aymanam under VI F tariff bearing consumer No. 13859. He has taken a Single phase connection in 2015 at the time of the construction of his house. After the completion of the construction work, the review respondent/appellant applied for load enhancement under LT 1 A domestic tariff and conversion of service connection to LT three phase, on18-07-2017. In the application, the connected load applied was 51326 Watts, but on inspection it was found that the connected load at the premises as 44 kW (leaving all unconnected equipments and plug points). On 03-01-2018, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallom accorded sanction for an estimate amounting to Rs.12.23 lakhs for constructing 950m of 11 kV SC OH line and installing one 100 kVA transformer at the property of the review respondent/appellant for meeting the appellant’s load requirement and accordingly demand notice was issued to the appellant by the review petitioner/respondent. The review respondent /appellant was not willing to bear the expenditure required to meet his power requirement stating that the review respondent/appellant is bound to remit the expenditure only if the power requirement is above one Megawatt. Challenging the demand notice issued, the review respondent/appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Southern Region which was disposed vide Order No. OP 20/2019 dated 21-05-2019, ordering that the distribution licensee is empowered to recover the expenditure incurred for providing supply as per Regulation 32 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and the Forum dismissed the case. Aggrieved by this, the appeal petition filed by the review respondent/appellant was found having merits and was allowed to the extent it was ordered. As per order No. P 45/2019 dated 26-08-2019, the following decisions were taken. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review petitioner is challenging the decision of this Authority by raising fresh arguments in the review petition. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. This Authority has considered all the arguments while disposing the appeal petition. A decision once rendered by a competent Authority/Court on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be liable to be agitated over again before the same Authority/Court. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate upper authority. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable and hence rejected. Having decided as above, it is ordered accordingly.

Data

Size 99.93 KB
Downloads 45
Created 2019-11-01 06:08:25

Download