In the matter of the GERC (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) and (Conduct of Business) Regulations for availing 7000 KVA Contract Demand and Consequential Directions – EQ

Summary:

—

## **Case Summary**

**Forum:** Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), Gandhinagar
**Petition No.:** 2342 of 2024
**Date of Order:** 19 July 2025

—

### **Parties**

* **Petitioner:** Hindalco Industries Ltd., setting up a greenfield copper manufacturing facility at Waghodia, GIDC, Vadodara, Gujarat.
*Counsel:* Adv. Kaustubha Mishra with Adv. Krishna Patel, Mr. Rohit Dongre, and Mr. Chirag Sharma.

* **Respondent No. 1:** Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (MGVCL)

* **Respondent No. 2:** Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. (GETCO)
*Counsel for both Respondents:* Adv. Ranjitha Ramachandran with others.

—

### **Relief Sought**

Extension of time for completion of works to avail **7000 KVA Contract Demand** from Respondent No. 1 (MGVCL) and related directions.

—

### **Petitioner’s Key Submissions**

1. **Jurisdiction:**

* Dispute involves interpretation of **Regulation 4.33(2)** of the GERC Supply Code, 2015 and **Regulation 9.3(3)** of GERC SOP Regulations, 2005.
* As per **Regulation 1.14** and **9.22** of the Supply Code, GERC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes.
* Not a “consumer dispute” under Sections 42(5)–(7) of the Electricity Act, 2003; hence CGRF/Ombudsman lack authority.

2. **Regulatory Obligations:**

* Distribution licensee must release bulk-power connections within 180 days after demand note compliance, subject to feasibility and safety. Delays beyond this must be reported to the Commission.

3. **Case Law Support:**

* **Surya Roshni case (Gujarat HC)** – HC remitted a similar matter to the Commission for decision.
* **Reliance Energy (SC)** – State Commission’s authority to direct licensees upheld.
* **BSES Rajdhani Power (APTEL)** – State Commission can regulate and issue directives in case of regulatory violations.

4. **Distinguishing Precedents:**

* Ombudsman orders and other cited cases (e.g., RSPL Ltd. v. PGVCL) are factually different and inapplicable.

—

### **Respondents’ Position**

* Raised a **preliminary issue**: whether the matter falls under CGRF jurisdiction as a consumer–licensee dispute or under the Commission’s specific powers.
* Requested time to file a **consolidated reply** after receiving petitioner’s rejoinder.

—

### **Commission’s Observations & Directions**

* Petition is under relevant sections of the Electricity Act, 2003 and GERC Regulations seeking extension for 7000 KVA demand.
* MGVCL to file consolidated reply within **3 weeks** with a copy to petitioner.
* Petitioner may file a further reply if needed.
* Parties to complete pleadings before the next hearing.
* **Next hearing date** to be intimated separately.

—

**Coram:**

* Shri S.R. Pandey, Member
* Shri Mehul M. Gandhi, Member

—

For more information please see below link: