Reliability charge on uninterrupted supply held unsustainable where higher tariff already covered assured supply; statutory appeal remained maintainable.

A reliability charge could not be imposed on a continuous process industry receiving uninterrupted supply through an express feeder, because the higher tariff already paid for that category was treated as compensation for assured supply and no statutory provision authorised an additional levy. Non-participation in the public hearing did not bar the consumer from statutory appeal, as a person directly affected by the tariff order remained a person aggrieved under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The consumer was therefore entitled to challenge the levy, while the additional charge itself was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reliability charge could be levied on a continuous process industry on an express feeder that was already paying a higher tariff for uninterrupted supply. (ii) Whether non-participation in the public hearing barred the consumer from maintaining a statutory appeal against the tariff order.

Issue (i): Whether a reliability charge could be levied on a continuous process industry on an express feeder that was already paying a higher tariff for uninterrupted supply.

Analysis: The consumer was a continuous process industry on an express feeder and was not subjected to load-shedding. The tariff applicable to such consumers was already higher than the tariff for non-continuous industries, and that higher tariff represented compensation for uninterrupted supply. No statutory provision, rule, or regulation was shown to authorise a further reliability charge over and above the existing tariff structure for such consumers.

Conclusion: The levy of reliability charge on the consumer was not sustainable and the issue is answered in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether non-participation in the public hearing barred the consumer from maintaining a statutory appeal against the tariff order.

Analysis: A statutory appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is available to any person aggrieved by the order of the Commission. The consumer was directly affected by the levy and therefore qualified as a person aggrieved. The mere fact that the consumer did not personally participate in the public hearing did not take away the right to challenge the order in appeal.

Conclusion: The consumer was entitled to maintain the appeal and the issue is answered in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The levy of reliability charge could not be sustained against the consumer, and the appeal challenging the Tribunal's view failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where consumers of a category are already paying a higher tariff for assured supply, an additional reliability charge cannot be imposed absent statutory authority; and a person directly affected by such levy remains a person aggrieved entitled to invoke statutory appeal.

---