Recently, Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has observed that the entire stretch of the National Highway would not constitute premises where commercial activity is carried on and thus, street Lights on national highways, which are provided for safety purposes and to prevent accidents, do not consume electricity for commercial purposes.
The tribunal highlighted inconsistencies within MERC’s 2023 order itself. Specifically, while paragraph 7.22.4.2 categorized lighting that doesn’t fall under other categories as commercial, paragraph 7.22.10 extended this classification to all highway lighting without any detailed reasoning. This unexplained broadening of the scope led to MERC extending the commercial tariff beyond what was initially proposed by MSEDCL APTEL found that Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s decision to include all highway lighting under the commercial category, alongside toll collection plazas, which was unjustified.
The tribunal also noted the MERC’s 2023 order deviated from prior judgments, including a Bombay High Court ruling that clarified street lighting on highways should not be categorized as commercial . The APTEL held that a regulatory orders does not have a statutory sanction and cannot be equated to a legislation to remove the basis of judicial pronouncements of superior courts.
The dispute before the tribunal was related to the arbitrary categorization of street lighting on the national highway within the LT-II: Commercial/Non-Residential tariff category, instead of the LT-VI: Street Light tariff category.
The appellants emphasized that MERC’s classification violates the principle of stare decisis.
Highlighting that the several state electricity regulatory commissions, such as in Punjab and Rajasthan, categorize street lighting on highways under public lighting categories rather than commercial categories.
The appellants contended that only lighting at toll plazas should be classified as commercial, while general highway lighting should be under the street lighting category. They further argued that MERC had accepted MSEDCL’s proposal without providing sufficient reasoning or justification for including highway lighting under the commercial tariff.
The respondent Submissions argued that the inclusion of highway lighting under LT-II is consistent with the commission’s powers to classify consumers based on their use of electricity. The tariff classification in MERC’s 2023 order introduced toll collection plazas and highway lighting in the LT-II category, which the commission deemed appropriate.
The respondents argued that the doctrine of stare decisis is not applicable here as other state commissions’ rulings do not bind MERC, and they defended the order as being within their regulatory discretion.
The Dilip Buildcon Ltd. and National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Aurangabad were represented by Saurav Agrawal, Harish Malik, Aakriti Dawar, Anshika Pandey and Shivam Chaudhary in an Appeal filed against Clause 7.22.10 of the Multi-Year Tariff Order dated March 31, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in Case No. 226 of 2022 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
The respondents were represented by Pratiti Rungta, Shashwat Kumar, Rahul Chouhan, Shikha Sood, Raghav Kapoor.
