Case No.

39/2021
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, GUJARAT STATE
Polytechnic Compound, Barrack No.3, Ambawadi,
Ahmedabad-380015

CASE NO. 39/2021

Appellant: M/s. Technovaa Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Survey No. 1256 & 1261,
Rajpur-Zulasan Road,
Village- Rajpur.
Ta.- Kadi, Dist.- Mehsana-382715.

Represented by: Shri D.S.Doshi, Authorized Representative.

V/s.

Respondent: Executive Engineer,

Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited,
Division Office,
Kalol-382721.

Represented by: Shri M.H.Patel, E.E., UGVCL, Division Office, Kalol.

Shri M.A.Trivedi, D.E., UGVCL, Division Office, Kalol.

:: Proceedings ::
1.0. The Appellant had submitted representation aggrieving with the order No.
68 dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal
Forum, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Sabarmati, in Case No.UGA-
04-003-2020-21. As per the Section 42(6), Electricity Act 2003 and
Regulation 3.19 of GERC (CGRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2019 the
representation was registered at this office as Case No.39/2021. Hearing of
this case was kept on 11.08.2021.
2.0. The Appellant has represented the case as under.
2.1. Vide E-mail dated 31.03.2021, The Appellant submitted the representations
letter dated 26.03.2021 for wrong levy of existing underground cable cost
in an estimate as under.
(1) The Appellant had applied for 1500KVA new HT connection at site
located at Village Rajpur, Ta. Kadi on 05.10.2020.
(2) On 20.10.2020, the Respondent had issued an estimate to the Appellant
for catering power from existing 11KV underground Technovaa feeder.
In the estimate, the Respondent has levied below stated charges in
addition to other applicable charges.

Page 1 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1 Fixed per KVA charges @ Rs.1800 Per KVA 27,00,000/-
2 11KV XLPE 185 Sq.mm underground cable 16,47,000/-
including laying-1 KM
3 11KV Outdoor cable Box 185 Sq.mm 23,928/-
4 11KV Straight Joint for 185 Sq.mm 7,655/-
5 GETCO Pro-Rata charges 19,20,000/-
(3) Vide letter dated 02.11.2020, the Appellant brought relevant
rules/regulations/orders to the notice of the Respondent, CE(Op),
UGVCL, and requested him to issue them revised estimate by deleting
underground cable charges of Rs.16.47Lakh.
(4) vide letter dated 07.11.2020, the Respondent informed the Appellant
that “The charges of said 1500KVA estimate recovery is as per norms
and you are requested to pay the same within stipulated time limit
otherwise it shall be treated as cancel.”
The Appellant also ask to note that the Respondent has not replied point
wise to the rules/regulations/orders cited by the Appellant, but has
replied in casual way that it is as per norms. It infers that
rules/regulations/orders cited by the Appellant are in order and the
Respondent has recovered charges in violation of GERC’s
Rules/regulations/orders.
(5) The Appellant were in urgent requirement of power supply, the Appellant
paid an estimate under protest and connection is released on
08.12.2020.
(6) Vide letter dated 09.12.2020(mailed on 18.12.2020), the Appellant again
brought to the notice of the Respondent relevant
rules/regulations/orders and requested to refund the Appellant
Rs.16.47 Lakh recovered for existing 11KV XLPE 185 Sq.mm
underground cable including laying-1.0KM.
The Appellant also stated that again the Respondent has not replied
point wise to the rules/regulations/orders cited by the Appellant, but
has replied in casual way that it is as per norms.
(7) The Appellant represented before CGRF, UGVCL facts and legal
provision related to recovery of actual expenditure incurred by DISCOM.
But, CGRF, UGVCL failed to understand the same and instead of
ordering based on conclusion from legal provision and facts, has ordered
based on its beliefs which is really shocking to know.
(8) The 11KV Technovaa feeder is existing from 66KV Rajpur S/s up to point
of supply of the Appellant through underground cable.
(9) No work is to be carried out by the Respondent except mentioned at Sr.
No. 3 and 4 of table in para no.2.1(2).
(10) Thus, actual expenditure to be incurred by the Respondent as per
prevailing cost data is Rs.23,928/- + Rs.7,655/- = Rs.31,583/- only.

Page 2 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(11) To cater power requirement of the Appellant no underground cable is
to be laid.
(12) As per GUVNL guideline dated 06.08.2020, “In case of any dispute,
interpretation of Hon’ble GERC order dated 07.07.2020 shall be
considered as final.”
(13) GERC’s Notification No. 05 of 2005 (Licensee’s Power to recover
expenditure incurred in providing supply and other Miscellaneous
charges) read as under:
“CHAPTER – V
5. PROVISION FOR HIGH TENSION / EXTRA HIGH-TENSION SUPPLY
(i) In case of applications where there is a need to erect a new HT line or
EHT line from the substation or extend the existing HT or EHT line or
strengthening of existing HT or EHT line in order to extend supply to the
applicants, the Distribution Licensee, on its own in case of HT, and in
coordination with Transmission Licensee in case of EHT, shall prepare an
estimate of the cost of aforementioned work including the cost of terminal
and metering arrangements at the premises of the consumer, but not
including the cost of meter. Such estimate shall be based on the latest cost
data as published by the Distribution Licensee and/or Transmission
Licensee.”
Thus, an estimate is be issued only where new HT line is to be erected
that means charges to be recovered only for actual expenditure incurred.
(14) At para 1.4 of the order dated 07.07.2020 in petition No. 1829 of 2019,
GERC has mentioned that
“It is submitted that in terms of provisions of the above regulations, the
state-owned distribution licensees are recovering charges for new
HT/EHT connection/load extension based on actual expenditure
incurred at prevailing cost data.”
And at para 1.6, it is mentioned by GERC that;
“The present provisions of the Regulations providing for recovery of
charges on the basis of actual expenditure incurred towards new
HT/EHT line.”
(15) As per para 1.7(b) of GERC’s order dated 07.07.2020 in petition No.1829
of 2019, UGVCL has mentioned that:
“In contrast, there could be another extreme situation wherein it is feasible
to cater comparatively larger power demand from nearby existing
feeder/electrical network by virtue of point of supply in near vicinity to the
existing network having adequate spare capacity to cater the larger
demand sought for. Under such scenario, large demand can be catered by
erecting only a small length of Tertiary line from nearby network. This
would lead to comparatively a small amount estimate to cater a large
demand.”
Thus, from above, it is clear that the Respondent had to recover charges
for actual line, if any, to be erected. In case of the Appellant actual work

Page 3 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
is to be carried out as per Sr. No.3 and 4 of table in para no.2.1(2)
amounting to Rs.31,583/- only.
(16) As mentioned at para 6.2 of GERC’s order, UGVCL has submitted that:
“Therefore, it is requested that for initial period of 1-2 years, the
commission may consider to introduce per kVA charges initially only for
overhead network and after reviewing the experience of recovery of per
kVA-based charges for overhead network, the concept of per kVA-based
charges may be introduced for underground cable network accordingly.
Further, in the cases, where underground cable is required, the present
provision of the relevant regulation will be followed i.e., actual cost of
recovery for underground cabling.”
(17) As per section 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 DISCOMs can recover
expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electric line or electrical
plant used for the purpose of giving that supply.
In current case no expense is incurred by the Respondent for laying 1
KM underground cable. Whatsoever expenditure was incurred in past,
is already fully recovered by the Respondent. If any expenditure is
incurred by the Respondent, it should submit its accounting entries and
entries of its store showing material issuance etc. No such details are
provided by the Respondent obviously because no expenditure is
incurred in laying 1 KM underground cable and as such the Respondent
cannot again recover cost of 1 KM cable.
(18) During hearing, the Appellant informed CGRF about decision of
erstwhile GEB in case of M/s. Interkiln Industries Ltd. located at
vadavswami. In said decision GM (Comm.) of erstwhile GEB has allowed
the benefit of idle line, if available and not dismantled, without charging
for that portion.
(19) CGRF has ordered based on its below stated beliefs.
(I) In this case underground cable laid is property of the Respondent
for which no any claim to be asked or settled by upcoming same
or other consumer.
(II) Consumer has no right on said underground cable which is
property of the Respondent, UGVCL.
(III) The Appellant has interpreted Hon. GERC statement … Actual
cost of UG cable to be recovered from consumer. where forum
understands this relates only with the quantum of work which is
supposed to do by Licensee for extending/new erection of any
network.
(20) The Appellant submitted response to Forum’s beliefs as under.
(I) It is to kindly mention that meaning of belief is faith/trust/to
accept as true particularly without absolute certainty. Whereas
conclusion is final decision, based on rules/regulations, coming
to an end.

Page 4 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
The Appellant stated that forum is bound to take decision in
accordance with act, rules, regulations, order directives by GERC
and not based on its beliefs.
(II) Clause 2.29 of CGRF Notification No. 2 of 2019,
“2.29. All decisions of the Forum shall strictly be in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and
orders and directions issued by the Commission from time to time.”
Also, as per clause 2.24,
“2.24. Forum(s) while dealing with the Complaints/Grievances shall
follow the principles of natural justice, including, inter alia, the following:
i. it shall protect the interest of the Consumers;…”
(21) The Appellant stated that they have never raised claimed/objected to
ownership of underground cable already laid in past by recovering its
full cost.
(22) As mentioned above in para no.2.1(13).
As per section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and GERC’s Notification
No. 5 of 2005, no any expenditure is incurred by UGVCL for laying 1 KM
underground cable. As such as per Notification No. 2 of 2019 (Clause
No. 2.24 and 2.29) forum should have decided not to allow the
Respondent to recover cost which it has not actually incurred. whereas
forum has taken decision based on its beliefs which is against GERC’s
Notification No. 02 of 2019.
(23) CGRF has mentioned that, “Appellant has interpreted Hon. GERC
statement… Actual cost of UG cable to be recovered from consumer.
where forum understands this relates only with the quantum of work
which is supposed to do by licensee for extending/new erection of any
network.”
Forum has mentioned its understanding only for the word ‘Actual cost
of UG cable’. But it has conveniently not considered below points;
(I) As per GERC’s Notification No. 05 of 2005, para 5 (i), DISCOM
shall prepare an estimate of the cost of new HT line from the sub-
station or extended the existing HT line.
Here no new work of laying of 1 KM underground cable is done by
the Respondent. As such the Respondent cannot recover cost of
said cable.
(II) In GERC’s order dated 07.07.2020 in petition No. 1829 of 2019 as
mentioned at para 14, it is stated by the Respondent that “It is
submitted that in terms of the provision of the above regulations,
the state-owned distribution licensees are recovering charges for
new HT/EHT connection/load extension based on actual
expenditure incurred at prevailing cost data”
Here the Respondent itself has mentioned that it is recovering
based on actual expenditure incurred whereas in case of the

Page 5 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Appellant no expenditure incurred for laying 1 KM underground
cable.
(III) As per para 1.6 of above GERC order, the Respondent has
mentioned that “the present provisions of the Regulations
providing for recovery of charges on the basis of actual expenditure
incurred towards new HT/EHT line/substations/strengthening of
line etc.”
(IV) At para 1.7, 1.13, 1.15 etc. of above GERC order, the Respondent
has mentioned above norms of recovery of charges on the basis of
actual expenditure incurred by the DISCOM.
Thus, forum has committed gross error by not considering words
actual expenditure incurred.
(V) As per clause 7 (iv) and (v) of the notification no. 05 of 2005 on
completion of work, licensee shall prepare final bill based on
actual cost. Also, licensee shall maintain records of all expenditure
incurred by him and carryout the adjustment by recovery of
refund as the case may be.
here also it is notified to prepare final bill based on actual
expenditure incurred and to make refunds of any savings in
relation to the initial estimate based on actual expenditure
incurred.
(24) As per the Electricity Act-2003, GERC’s Notification No. 5 of 2005,
submission of UGVCL in GERC petition no. 1829 of 2019, decision of
erstwhile GEB, UGVCL can recover the actual cost incurred only. Once
cost is recovered it cannot be re-recovered from the consumer.
Thus, the Respondent has not followed notifications/rules of GERC in
right spirit. beliefs considered by CGRF for deciding the Appellant’s
grievance has no rational and are in violation of natural justice and
against interest of consumers in contravention of CGRF Regulation,
2019.
(25) The Appellant prayed as under.
a. To quash order of CGRF.
b. To direct the Respondent to refund Rs.16.47 Lakh to the Appellant
recovered for existing 11KV XLPE 185sq.mm underground cable
including laying 1KM.
2.2. Vide E-mail dated 31.03.2021, The Appellant submitted the representations
letter dated 26.03.2021 for wrong levy of per KVA Charges in an estimate
as under.
(1) The Appellant had applied for 1500KVA new HT connection at site
located at Village Rajpur, Ta. Kadi on 05.10.2020.
(2) On 20.10.2020, the Respondent had issued an estimate to the Appellant
for catering power from existing 11KV underground Technovaa feeder.
In the estimate, the Respondent has levied below stated charges in
addition to other applicable charges.

Page 6 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1 Fixed per KVA charges @ Rs.1800 Per KVA 27,00,000/-
2 11KV XLPE 185 Sq.mm underground cable 16,47,000/-
including laying-1 KM
3 11KV Outdoor cable Box 185 Sq.mm 23,928/-
4 11KV Straight Joint for 185 Sq.mm 7,655/-
5 GETCO Pro-Rata charges 19,20,000/-

(3) In accordance with GERC’s order in Petition No. 1829 of 2019 dated
07.07.2020, since the connection of the Appellant is released from
existing underground cable only, per KVA charges are not recoverable
from the Appellant.
(4) Vide letter dated 02.11.2020, the Appellant brought relevant rules/
regulations/order to the notice of CE (Op), UGVCL and requested him
to issue us revised estimate by deleting per KVA charges at Rs.
1800/KVA.
(5) Vide letter dated 07.11.2020, the Respondent informed the Appellant
that, “The charges of said 1500KVA estimate recovery is as per norms
and you are requested to pay the same within stipulated time limit
otherwise it shall be treated as cancel.”
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not replied point wise to
the rules/regulations/orders cited by the Appellant, but has replied in
casual way that it is as per norms.
(6) The Appellant were in urgent requirement of power supply, the
Appellant paid an estimate under protest and connection is released on
08.12.2020.
(7) The Appellant represented before CGRF, UGVCL facts and legal
provision related to recovery of actual expenditure incurred by DISCOM.
But, CGRF, UGVCL failed to understand the same and instead of
ordering based on conclusion from legal provision and facts, has ordered
based on its beliefs which is really shocking to know.
(8) The 11KV Technovaa feeder is existing from 66KV Rajpur S/s up to
point of supply of the Appellant through underground cable. Earlier
connection was released by laying 3.4KM underground cable from sub-
station. Subsequently after PDC of earlier Technovaa connection or
bifurcation of 11KV Mayur Feeder, partial Technovaa feeder was used
for bifurcation by laying 1.2KM overhead line.
(9) No work is to be carried out by Respondent except mentioned at Sr. No.
3 and 4 of table in para no.2.2(2).
(10) Thus, actual expenditure to be incurred by the Respondent as per
prevailing cost data is Rs.23,928/- + Rs.7,655/- = Rs.31,583/- only.
(11) To cater power requirement of the Appellant no overhead network is to
be erected.

Page 7 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(12) As per GERC order and GUVNL guideline, GERC has approved recovery
of per KVA charges for overhead network (i.e., not for underground
network).
(13) Petition No.1829 of 2019 was filed to decide per KVA charge for overhead
line network and underground cable network before GERC.
As per para 1.18 (ii) and (v) it is mentioned as under.
“1.18…….
(ii) Per kVA charge is in lieu of infrastructure to be developed by DISCOM
only and shall be applicable for technically feasible cases only.
(v) In certain cases, due to site constraints, hybrid network (i.e., some of
the portion having OH line and certain portion with UG cable) may be
required to lay. In such cases, it is proposed to recover the Per kVA cost
on prorate basis. For example, if a new connection of 400kVA is
demanded and for that 700mtr. of OH line and 500mtr. of UG cable,
total 1200mtr. line is required to lay. Then Per kVA charges shall be
recovered as under.
a. kVA (for OH Line) =(400kVA/1200Mtr.) * 700 Mtr. = 233kVA
overhead fix charge.
b. kVA (for UG cable) = (400kVA/1200Mtr.) * 500 Mtr. = 167kVA
U/G fix charge.”
(14) As mentioned at para 6.2 of GERC’s order dated 07.07.2020, UGVCL has
submitted that:
“Therefore, it is requested that for initial period of 1-2 years, the
commission may consider to introduce per kVA charges initially only for
overhead network and after reviewing the experience of recovery of per
kVA-based charges for overhead network, the concept of per kVA-based
charges may be introduced for underground cable network accordingly.
Further, in the cases, where underground cable is required, the present
provision of the relevant regulation will be followed i.e., actual cost of
recovery for underground cabling.”
(15) In GERC’s order dated 07.07.2020, in Petition No.1829 of 2019 filed by
UGVCL and other DISCOMs at para 11.11, it is mentioned that;
“11.11…. This will not be applicable to underground cable network, for
that the present practice of issuing the estimate shall continue till the
methodology for this is further approved by the Commission.”
(16) In GUVNL Guideline dated 06.08.2020 at point no. 2 ,it is mentioned
that “The above per KVA based estimate charges is in lieu of overhead-
infrastructure to be developed by DISCOM i.e., for line and service
Connection charges of DISCOM.”
(17) In GUVNL guideline point no. 7 is as under;
“If the HT new connection/additional load is proposed from an overhead
network/feeder, the proposed HT line shall be erected overhead only.
The Underground cable line shall be laid only in those parts of the line
route, where erection of overhead line technically not feasible. The

Page 8 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
actual cost of such underground part of the line with underground
components shall be recovered as per actual cost incurred as per the
prevailing practice over and above the per KVA based recovery of
charges.”
In case of the Appellant, underground cable line is proposed inferring
that existing feeder is underground feeder.
(18) At point No. 6 of GUVNL guideline, it is mentioned that;
“If the normal distribution system is underground and nearby feeder is
also having underground network, then new connection shall be
proposed with underground cable network only. Similarly, for extension
of HT line from existing underground feeder shall be with underground
cable network only and for such underground works, actual cost
incurred shall be recovered as per the prevailing practice.”

[Note: In only underground network, per KVA based recovery is not

mentioned.]
As mentioned in guideline, for extension of HT line from existing
underground feeder shall be with underground cable network only,
inferring that existing feeder is underground feeder.
Thus, as per GUVNL guideline;
(i) Per KVA charges are in lieu of overhead infrastructure to be
developed by DISCOM.
(ii) If existing feeder is underground, then only extension should
be with underground cable.
(19) CGRF has ordered based on its below stated beliefs.
(I) In (1) GUVNL/Tech-2/DE-1/HT per KVA Cost/1548 dated
06.08.2020 (2) before GERC, Gandhinagar Petition No.1829 of
2019 and (3) GERC Notification 9-2005, Nowhere it is clearly
written clause to support the representation of the Appellant
that under remark of No Technical feasibility, what to do for
catering power to new HT connection where nearby
distribution mains is of Mix (i.e., Overhead and underground
Network).
(II) As per original underground feeder is used for bifurcation of
Mayur feeder (Forum has mentioned Madhav feeder) by laying
overhead line. So as this existing feeder cannot be considered
as any of the type category whether overhead or underground
UGVCL has treated first as overhead feeder and length to
consider to cater power is below 5.5KM. So, per KVA charge
levied sounds in correct manner which is justified.
(20) The Appellant submitted response to Forum’s beliefs as under.
(I) It is to kindly mention that meaning of belief is faith/trust/to
accept as true particularly without absolute certainty. Whereas
conclusion is final decision, based on rules/regulations,
coming to an end.

Page 9 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
The Appellant stated that forum is bound to take decision in
accordance with act, rules, regulations, order directives by
GERC and not based on its beliefs.
(II) The Appellant submitted that as mentioned in para 2.2(14) and
2.2(15) above, GERC in its order has explicitly mentioned that
per KVA charges is in lieu of infrastructure to be developed by
DISCOM and will not be applicable to underground network.
(III) The Appellant submitted that as per para 2.2(16) above,
GUVNL has mentioned that per KVA charges is in lieu of
overhead infrastructure to be developed by DISCOM. In our
case no overhead infrastructure was to be developed.
(IV) The Appellant narrated in para 2.2(17) and 2.2(18) above, as
per GUVNL guideline existing feeder should be treated as
underground feeder.
(V) The Appellant submitted in view of above para 2.2(20)(II),
2.2(21)(III) and 2.2(21)(IV) per KVA charges are not applicable
in his case.
(VI) As per data discussed during Forum’s hearing and Forum’s
order, current feeder is having 3.4KM underground cable and
1.2KM overhead line.
The Appellant stated that during the hearing they brought to
the notice of Forum decision on NHAI. As per National Highway
Act, 1956, toll tax is mandatory for each national highway. As
per which in Sarkhej Gandhinagar highway out of total cost of
Rs. 867 Cr., Rs. 434 Cr. will be paid by Government of Gujarat.
Since Contribution of Government of Gujarat is 50.06% toll tax
will not be levied on Sarkhej-Gandhinagar highway practically
considering it as state highway.
The Appellant represented before the forum that in current
case, underground cable network is more than double than
overhead network. Therefore, as per natural justice feeder
should be treated as underground network. Forum is bound to
follow the principle of natural justice and shall protect interest
of consumers as per Para 2.24 of CGRF and ombudsman
Notification No. 02 of 2019.
(VII) Even if feeder is considered as hybrid feeder, Forum is failed to
follow the principle already mentioned at para 1.18(v) which is
reproduced hereunder in verbatim;
“1.18.(v) In certain cases, due to site constraints, hybrid
network (i.e., some of the portion having OH line and certain
portion with UG cable) may be required to lay. In such cases, it
is proposed to recover the Per kVA cost on prorate basis. For
example, if a new connection of 400kVA is demanded and for
that 700mtr. of OH line and 500mtr. of UG cable, total
1200mtr. line is required to lay. Then Per kVA charges shall be
recovered as under.
a. KVA (for OH Line) = (400kVA/1200Mtr.) * 700Mtr.
= 233kVA overhead fix charge.
b. KVA (for UG cable) = (400kVA/1200Mtr.) * 500Mtr.
= 167kVA U/G fix charge.”

Page 10 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
During petition the Respondent has withdrawn to apply per
KVA charges for underground network at present. Therefore,
KVA derived for overhead line by applying above principle
Rs.1800/KVA fixed charge is to be levied and to KVA derived
for underground network by applying above principle, zero per
KVA should be applied.
Considering 3.4KM underground cable and 1.2KM overhead
line, KVA for overhead network would be derived as (1500/4.6)
* 1.2 = 391.30KVA i.e., rounded to 391 KVA. Thus, fixed charge
of Rs.1800/KVA could be applicable for maximum 391KVA
only even if existing feeder is treated as mixed feeder.
(21) As per the order of GERC in petition no. 1829 of 2019 and subsequent
guideline of GUVNL and natural justice, per KVA fix charges cannot be
levied in case of the Appellant.
Thus, the Respondent has not followed notifications/rules of GERC in
right spirit. beliefs considered by CGRF for deciding the Appellant’s
grievance has no rational and are in violation of natural justice and
against interest of consumers in contravention of CGRF Regulation,
2019.
(22) The Appellant prayed as under.
(a) To quash order of CGRF.
(b) To direct the Respondent to refund Rs.27.00 Lakh to the Appellant
recovered as fixed per KVA charges Rs.1800 per KVA.
2.3. Vide letter dated 19.08.2021, The Appellant submitted the representations
as under.
(1) During hearing and vide Ombudsman daily order, the Respondent was
directed to file a reply in accordance with the provisions/regulations
framed by GERC. But the Respondent’s further submission vide letter
dated 17.08.2021 is not based on provision/regulations framed by
GERC.
(2) The Respondent has mentioned that hybrid network is having 2.4Km
underground cable and 2.185Km of overhead line. But if feeder map
submitted along with its reply is referred, the underground cable length
is 2.35+0.05+1.00 = 3.40KM. The Respondent has not considered 1.0KM
underground cable length of idle cable, which is wrong. As such hybrid
network is having 3.4KM underground cable and 2.185 overhead
network as on date of proposal.
(3) The Respondent has mentioned that HT connection has been proposed
from hybrid network which is not purely underground, hence clause
no.11.11 of GERC order 1829/2019 dated 07.07.2020 and clause no. 6
of GUVNL letter 1548/06.08.2020 cannot be applicable hence per KVA
charges Rs.1800/KVA has been recovered.
The Appellant submitted that under reference for per KVA cost, it is
crystal clear that the Respondent cannot levy per KVA charge at all or it
can levy per KVA charge for KVA as mentioned in para no.1.18 of GERC
order dated 07.07.2020 in petition no.1829/2019.

Page 11 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(4) About levy of per KVA charge in case of hybrid network, the Appellant
have deliberated at length at para no. 2.2(21)(VII) of their submission
dated 26.03.2021 about per KVA charges. As mentioned at point no.
2.3(2) above, as per feeder map submitted by the Respondent,
configuration of feeder is as below.
Underground cable length = 3.40Km
Overhead cable length = 2.185 Km
Total feeder length = 5.585 Km
Therefore, KVA on which per KVA charge can be applied
=(1500/5.585) × 2.185 = 586.84 = 587KVA
Thus, fixed charge of Rs.1800/KVA could be applicable for maximum
587KVA only even if existing feeder is treated as mixed feeder.
Or
If it is assumed that no formula has been approved by GERC for mixed
network, then it may please be noted that in current feeder more than
60% feeder is underground. Therefore, overall feeder shall be considered
as underground feeder and per KVA charge cannot be recovered at all in
this case.
(5) The Respondent has mentioned about clause no.7 of GUVNL circular
dated 06.08.2020, which is applicable to overhead network only. As
mentioned by the Respondent itself, current network is mix network and
therefore contention of the Respondent is mis-leading.
Further, it is to kindly mention that the Respondent said submission has
not base of GERC’s provisions/regulations.
(6) The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not carried out new work
of laying 1.0KM underground cable. As such the Respondent cannot
recover cost of underground cable.
(7) The Appellant submitted that the Appellant's current submission may
please be consider over and above to our original both submissions dated
26.03.2021.
(8) The Respondent has mentioned about R&C office, UGVCL’s guideline
dated 08.03.2021 said guideline is issued after CGRF order in case of
the Appellant and it is imperative to mention that it is in violation of
GERC’s rules and regulations.
(9) The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not followed
notification/rules of GERC in right spirit. Beliefs considered by CGRF for
deciding grievance of the Appellant has not rational and are in violation
of natural justice and against the interest of consumer in contravention
of CGRF regulation, 2019.
3.0. The Respondent has represented the case as under.
3.1. Vide letter dated 01.06.2021, The Respondent submitted the
representations against the Application made by the Appellant as under.
(1) The Appellant had applied for new HT connection of 1500KVA at village
Rajpur on 05.10.2020.

Page 12 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(2) As per the technical feasibility available estimate was issued to the
Appellant by Respondent R&C office vide letter No.
UGVCL/Regd/Com/HT/1875/ 20.10.2020.
(3) As per the technical feasibility said connection was proposed from
existing 11 KV Technova Feeder emanating from 66KV Rajpur s/s.
(4) Existing 11KV Technova Feeder has a mixed network i.e., Partially
overhead and partially underground.
(5) As per the feasibility distance from point of tapping to proposed point of
supply is 1.0KM and due to narrow road and other feeder line crossing
underground cable required to proposed and same was approved by
competent authority.
(6) As per GERC’s Notification No. 9 of 2005 and GUVNL circular No.
GUVNL/Tech-2/DE-1HT per KVA Cost/1548/06.08.2020 and GERC
Petition No.1829 of 2019 dated 07.07.2020 estimated was issued which
is as under.
Sr. Particular Amount Remarks
No.
1 GETCO Prorate 1920000/- As per GERC notification 9 of
Charges 2005 & GETCO circular
2 Fixed per KVA Charges 2700000/- Due to Mixed Network as per
@ 1800 GUVNL Circular
3 Charges for the 16,78,583/- Due to Mixed Network as per
additional work GUVNL Circular
4 Security Deposit 92,75,435/- As per GERC Regulation
5 Agreement Fee 320/- As per GERC Regulation
(7) From the above estimate, the Appellant has a grievance against the
charges toward additional work i.e., Rs.16,78,583/- and also towards
fixed charge i.e., Rs.27,00,000/-.
(8) Detailed breakup of the same is as under.
a) 11 KV outdoor cable Joints--- 04 Nos. Rs. 23928/-
b) 11 KV straight Joints--- 01 Nos. Rs. 7655/-
c) 11 KV XLPE cable 185 mm2 including Laying---1.0 KM Rs. 1647000/-
(9) As per GUVNL Circular No. GUVNL/Tech-2/DE-1/HT Per KVA Cost/
1548/06.08.2020 clause no. 7, which is reproduces here as under.
“If the HT new connection/additional load is proposed from an overhead
network/feeder, the proposed HT line shall be erected overhead only. The
underground cable line shall be laid only in those parts of the line route
where erection of overhead line is technically not feasible. The Actual
cost of such underground part of the line with underground component
shall be recovered as per actual cost incurred as per prevailing practice
over and above per KVA based recovery of charges.”
Also same was mentioned in the clause no.11.8 of GERC Petition
1829/2019 dated 07.07.2020.
In case of the Respondent from the existing tapping to proposed point of
supply it is technically not feasible to erect overhead line hence

Page 13 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
underground cable was proposed & cost of the same is taken in the
estimate.
(10) As per available technical feasibility new HT connection of the
Appellant has been approved from exiting 11KV Technovaa feeder. It has
a mixed network i.e., Partially underground and partially overhead.
(11) In GUVNL letter No.GUVNL/Tech-2/DE-1/HT Per KVA Cost/1548/
06.08.2020 and also in GERC order dated 07.07.2020 of Petition
No.1829/2019 ,no clarification has been given regarding when there is
a mixed/hybrid network existing than fixed charges is to be recovered or
not.
(12) However total network is not underground, clause of actual cost is
not applicable.
(13) This connection was approved from the mixed network feeder and
fixed charges i.e., per KVA charges Rs.1800/KVA has been recovered and
due to it is technically not feasible to give power supply to the Appellant
through overhead network, Underground cable was proposed and actual
cost is also recovered as per GUVNL Circular No. GUVNL/Tech-2/DE-
1/HT Per KVA Cost/1548/06.08.2020 in addition to the fixed charges.
(14) After issuing estimate the Appellant has given application to the
Respondent, R&C office on 02.11.2020, In which it was mentioned that
fixed charges as well as underground cable charges both were wrongly
taken. However, estimate was given as per GUVNL guideline only hence
the Respondent, R&C office has given reply vide UGVCL/Regd/Com/
HT/2001/07.11.2020, that it is as per norms.
(15) The Appellant had paid the estimate on 10.11.2020 at Kalol Division
office & also execute an agreement on 11.11.2020.
(16) After payment & execution of an agreement work was completed by
utilizing the idle cable lying in the route of the Appellant after necessary
testing, verification & rectification at field.
(17) HT Connection was released on 08.12.2020 & on the very next day
i.e., on 09.12.2020, the Appellant has given second application regarding
wrong levy of estimate at R&C office, Mehsana. Same was also replied by
UGVCL/Regd/Com/HT/New 2340/21.12.2020.
(18) As per clause No. VII of Chapter 3 of GERC notification 9 of 2005
“Licensee’s power to recover expenditure incurred in providing supply
and other Misc. charges”
“The entire service line, notwithstanding that portion thereof has been
paid for by the consumer shall be the property of the distribution licensee
and by whom it shall be maintained and distribution licensee have a
right to use it for the supply of energy to any other person by tapping the
service or otherwise except if such supply is detrimental to the supply to
the consumer already connected therewith.”
Thus, underground cable lying “idle cable” was utilized for the new HT
connection of the Appellant and Distribution licensee have a right to use
it and can recover the charges.

Page 14 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
The Respondent submitted that Looking to the merits of the case the
prayer of the Appellant is not admissible as per norms. It is requested to
consider deposition made by the Respondent as above in the matter of
appeal made by the Appellant.
3.2. Further vide letter dated 17.08.2021, The Respondent submitted the
representations as under.
(1) The Appellant had applied for the new HT connection, feasibility was
checked and only feasibility found from existing Technovaa feeder. It has
a hybrid network having 2.4 KM Underground cable and 2.185 km of
overhead line. single line diagram of feeder is submitted.
(2) As earlier mentioned, no clarification has been given in GERC order
1829/2019/07.07.2020 regarding when any new HT connection has
been proposed from existing hybrid network. However existing network
is not purely underground hence clause of actual cost i.e., clause no.
11.11 of GERC order 1829/2019 dated 07.07.2020 and clause no.6 of
GUVNL letter 1548/06.08.2020 cannot be applicable hence per KVA
charges Rs.1800/KVA has been recovered.
(3) Proportionate cost of per KVA charges recovery has been submitted in
GERC petition vide point no. 1.18, but same was not considered in order
and full fixed charges has been approved as per point no.11.9.
(4) As per clause no. 11.9, GERC order 1829/2019 dated 07.07.2020 clause
for the releasing new HT connection/load extension has been decided
and generally for load extension there is no work require to be executed
even though the Respondent have to recover fixed per KVA charges that
means per KVA charges is not relate to the quantum of work. Hence
recovery of fixed per KVA charges from the Appellant is in order.
(5) Also, as per clause no.7 of GUVNL circular no. 1548/06.08.2020 “The
underground cable line shall be laid only in those parts of the line route
where erection of overhead line is technically not feasible.” The actual
cost of such line should be recovered. As per prevailing practice over and
above the per KVA based recovery of charges.
(6) Accordingly for the Appellant underground cable of 1.0KM was proposed
due to narrow road line and different feeders crossing/passing through
out and cost of the same was recovered in the estimate.
(7) As per clause no.7.4 of petition in reply of GCCI, it was submitted that
once cable is laid than it is not possible to replace the same with the
higher capacity, similarly once cable laid for any consumer cannot be
remove completely after PDC of the said connection, however can be
made totally isolate from the network and will be reutilize as and when
require after recovering charges as per the prevailing practice similarly
underground cable idle line has been utilize for the Appellant, said
underground XLPE power cable having 1.0km length lying idle, which
was preserve under the ground and not removed to utilize further and
mainly to avoid unnecessary handling and save the electrical and

Page 15 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
mechanical characteristic of such costly item. So, considering this idle
cable as a preserve item and reutilize the same hence recovered full cost.
(8) For such idle cable line in the underground, recently the Respondent
R&C office has given guideline for utilization of such idle cable vide
UGVCL/Regd/com/514/08.03.2021, which is submitted.
:: Order ::
4.0. I have considered the contentions of the Appellant and the contentions of
the Respondent and the facts, statistics and relevant papers, which are on
records, and considering them in detail, my findings are as under.
4.1. The Appellant has represented two issues here in this case.
(1) Wrong levy of existing underground cable cost in an estimate.
(2) Wrong levy of per KVA charges in an estimate.
As per submissions, the Appellant, M/s. Technovaa Plastic Industries Pvt.
Ltd. has applied for new HT connection for 1500KVA on 05.10.2020 at
Rajpur, Tal.: Kadi.
At the same location, earlier HT connection No.20730 of 3000KVA was
existing in the name of the Appellant. The said HT connection was released
on 04.01.2012. The Respondent erected new 11KV underground feeder
from 66KV Rajpur substation under cost contribution approval given by the
Respondent. It is on records that due to non-payment of energy bills, meter
and CTPT unit of the said connection removed by the Respondent and said
HT connection was permanently disconnected on 01.11.2018. There is no
dispute among the parties for the said fact.
4.2. On 20.10.2020, the Respondent issued an estimate for catering power
supply for existing 11 KV underground Technovaa Feeder.
Sr. No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1 Fixed per KVA charges @ Rs.1800 Per KVA 27,00,000/-
2 11KV XLPE 185 Sq.mm underground cable 16,47,000/-
including laying-1 KM
3 11KV Outdoor cable Box 185 Sq.mm 23,928/-
4 11KV Straight Joint for 185 Sq.mm 7,655/-
5 GETCO Pro-Rata charges 19,20,000/-
On receipt of estimate, it was objected by the Appellant before the
Respondent with wrong levy of charges vide letter dated 07.11.2020 and
06.12.2020. It was the submission that due to urgent requirement of power
supply estimate was paid on 08.12.2020 with protest. The HT connection
was released on 08.12.2020.
4.3. The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission after following due process
has finalized the GERC (Licensee’s Power to recover Expenditure incurred
in providing supply and other Miscellaneous charges) (Second Amendment)
Regulation-2020 Published in Government Gazette on 26.06.2020.
“CHAPTER – V
5. PROVISION FOR HIGH TENSION / EXTRA HIGH-TENSION SUPPLY

Page 16 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(i) In case of applications where there is a need to erect a new HT line or
EHT line from the substation or extend the existing HT or EHT line or
strengthening of existing HT or EHT line in order to extend supply to
the applicants, the Distribution Licensee, on its own in case of HT, and
in coordination with Transmission Licensee in case of EHT, shall
prepare an estimate of the cost of aforementioned work including the
cost of terminal and metering arrangements at the premises of the
consumer, but not including the cost of meter. Such estimate shall be
based on the latest cost data as published by the Distribution Licensee
and/or Transmission Licensee.
(ii) In case of applications where there is a need to erect a new sub-station
for extending supply to the applicant, the Distribution Licensee, on its
own or in co-ordination with Transmission Licensee, shall prepare an
estimate of the cost of the necessary works in the same way as
indicated in sub-clause 4.2 (i) above. In cases of applications when the
capacity of existing substation is required to be augmented, the
differential cost of existing and new such electrical plant will form the
basis of calculation of pro-rata charges. The estimate of the cost of such
substation shall be based on the latest cost data as published by the
Distribution Licensee and/or the Transmission Licensee.
(iii) The Distribution Licensee may recover the charges for seeking new
demand / load extension at HT level on Rs. per kVA/kW basis from
prospective applicants and may dispense with the preparation of
detailed individual estimates depending on technical and other
constraints and parameters, if any Necessary details shall be
submitted to the Commission, as may be required. The Commission
may accept the same after detailed scrutiny or ask the Distribution
Licensee to file necessary details, as may be required or issue Suo moto
directions.
(iv) The methodology to be adopted by the Distribution Licensees shall
require Commission’s approval.”
In petition No.1829 of 2019, Petition under section 45, 46, 86 and other
applicable provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the GERC
(Licensee’s Power to recover Expenditure incurred in providing supply and
other Miscellaneous charges) Regulations, 2005 for approval of levy of per
KVA based charges from the Applicants towards expenditure to be incurred
by the distribution licensee for development of electrical infrastructure/
network for providing power supply at 11KV/22KV voltage level to new HT
connections/additional load, was ordered on 07.07.2020.
It is required to read the observation of relevant para of the said order.
“(1) The present petition is filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
(GUVNL) (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”), under Section 45, 46,
86 and other applicable provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the
GERC (Licensee’s Power to Recover Expenditure incurred in providing
supply and other Miscellaneous Charge) Regulations, 2005 for approval of
levy of Per kVA based charges from applicant toward expenditure to be
incurred by Distribution Licensee for providing power supply at 11 kV / 22
kV voltage level for new HT connection / additional demand.

Page 17 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
(1.5) As per the present provisions of the Regulations, the amount of
estimate for new HT Connection/Load Extension is governed by two major
factors namely (a) Location of Power Supply to be catered with respect to
existing feeder or sub-station and (b) Balance load catering capacity
available in such existing nearby feeders/sub-station against the
new/additional demand sought for. This is resulting into major variations
in the estimate amount to be recovered from HT Applicant for new
connection/additional load.

(1.6) Moreover, the present provisions of the Regulations providing for

recovery of charges on the basis of actual expenditure incurred towards new
HT / EHT line / substations /strengthening of line etc. is also resulting into
wide variability and non-uniformity in the estimate charges owing to the
above factors leading to consumer resentment / grievances.

(1.9) Moreover, various consumer groups / applicants have been

representing to rationalize and bring uniformity in the charges to be
recovered by Distribution Licensees from an applicant for new HT
connections/load extension.

(1.15) The Petitioner has proposed the methodology to work out charges to
be recovered on Rs. per kVA basis from the prospective applicants seeking
new demand / load extension at HT level as under:
• For determination of per kVA-based charges, maximum allowable
feeder length considering feeder capacity and permissible HTVR is
worked out. Based on permissible feeder length, normative cost of 11
kV / 22 kV feeder is worked out taking into consideration the cost of
all possible components of a feeder excluding cost towards Railway
Crossing and Highway Crossing for which recovery shall be based on
actual expenditure incurred for crossing work. The total normative
cost of feeder with allowable feeder length divided by total permissible
kVA load that can be catered from such feeder shall be the basis for
recovery of per kVA charges irrespective of actual expenditure
involved/incurred.
• For determining permissible feeder length, maximum permissible %
HTVR is considered at 9% as per GERC (Standard of Performance of
Distribution Licensee) Regulations, 2005. Maximum feeder capacity
to be considered is 4000 kVA in case of 11 kV feeder and 8000 kVA
in case of 22 kV feeder as per GERC (Electricity Supply Code and
Related Matters) Regulations, 2015. For working of normative feeder
cost, all components of feeder including Support Pole / underground
cable, VCB, indoor and outdoor cable termination kit, feeder gentry
with cross boundary protection, guarding, tapping, CTPT structure
with CTPT and TVM etc. are to be taken into consideration.
• Considering % HT VR and maximum current capacity of given
conductor, the length of the feeder to work out the feeder cost may be
taken 5.5 km with 100 Sq. mm Dog conductor in case of overhead

Page 18 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
line and 14.5 km with 240 Sq. mm XLPE Cable in case of
underground line.
• The normative feeder cost needs to be worked out considering
following technical feeder specifications:
o In case of 11 kV overhead line: 100 sq.mm Dog conductor and
11 Mtr. RSJ poles
o In case of 11 kV underground line: 240 sq.mm XLPE Cable
(with spare cable - provision of alternate source of supply)
o In case of 22 kV overhead line: 100 sq.mm Dog conductor and
11 Mtr. RSJ poles
o In case of 22 kV underground line 240 sq.mm XLPE Cable (with
spare cable - provision of alternate source of supply)
o U/G cable laying is proposed by push-pull method using
horizontal drilling machine, HDPE pipe with 110 mm, Nominal
Diameter of 5.3 to 6 mm thickness as per IS:4984
o Or for laying of underground cable by way of manual
excavation, half round RCC Hume pipe with 6" internal
diameter and 1 mtr. length or any better protection is suggested
for each cable.
o HT/HT, HT/LT crossings are proposed with 95 sq.mm HT ABC
• With above specifications, the Petitioner has worked out average
normative feeder cost for 11 kV Overhead / Underground cable and
22 kV Overhead / Underground cable as per current cost data of
respective DISCOM, as shown in Tables below:

Table 1: Estimate of 11 kV Line with 100 Sq. mm, AAA DOG

Conductor using 116 mm x 100 mm x 11 mtr. Long RSJ Pole (33 mtr.
Span) as per prevailing Cost Data of respective DISCOMs
Cost in Rs.
Quantity
Sr. Required
Item UOM DGVCL MGVCL PGVCL UGVCL
No. for 6 KM
Length
Total Cost
of line
11 kV Feeder
VCB Panel
1 No. 3,18,650 4,32,678 3,32,925 2,97,000
complete in all 1
respect at s/s end

3CX11kV, 240
Sq. mm, XLPE
Alu. Cable
2 Mtr. 2,40,400 3,00,200 3,91,400 2,80,200
including laying 200
by digging the
cable trench

Take up DP
structure with
3 No. 66,786 71,191 82,747 75,549
Cross Boundary 1
Protection using
116 mm x 100

Page 19 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
mm x 11 mtr.
Long RSJ Pole

11 kV Indoor
Cable Box
4 suitable for 240 No. 7,000 8,534 7,180 11,098
2
Sq. mm XLPE
Cable

11 kV Outdoor
Cable Box
5 suitable for 240 No. 7,000 8,692 7,930 13,352
2
Sq. mm XLPE
Cable

11 kV Line with
100 Sq. mm, AAA
DOG Conductor
6 using 116 mm x KM 51,12,135 52,61,333 47,42,491 52,47,226
5.5
100 mm x 11 mtr.
Long RSJ Pole (33
mtr. Span)

11 kV DP
Structure with
7 No. 1,33,572 1,42,382 1,65,494 1,40,030
A.B. Switch using 2
11 mtr. RSJ Poles

11 kV Shackle DP
using 116 mm x
8 No. 1,73,802 2,13,573 1,96,062 1,61,895
100 mm x 11 mtr. 3
Long RSJ Pole

CTPT Structure
with CTPT and
TVM considering
9 Set 10,46,128 9,16,144 9,87,704 10,75,408
average 10 8
Connections per
Feeder

Total Cost of the

10 Rs. 71,80,657 74,27,423 70,08,291 73,76,942
Feeder of 6 KM

Per kVA Cost

(Considering Rs.
11 1,795 1,857 1,752 1,844
Feeder Capacity - KVA
4000 kVA)

Rs.
12 Average Cost 1,812
KVA

Addition of approx. 10% is added for cost escalation in case of overhead line for the
period by which it will get approved, which comes to Rs. 2,000/-kVA.

Page 20 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Table 2: Estimate for 3CX11kV, 240 Sq. mm, XLPE Alu. Cable
including laying by digging the Cable Trench with Spare Cable (14.5
KM x 2 = 29 KM) as per prevailing Cost Data of respective DISCOMs
Qty. Cost in Rs.
req.
for 14.5 DGVCL MGVCL PGVCL UGVCL
KM
Sr. U/G
Item UOM
No. cable
line
Total Cost
with
one
spare
cable
11 kV Feeder
VCB Panel
1 complete in all No. 3,18,650 4,32,678 3,32,925 2,97,000
1
respect at s/s
end

3CX11kV, 240
Sq. mm, XLPE
Alu. Cable
including
2 laying by Mtr. 2,40,400 3,00,200 3,91,400 2,80,200
200
digging the
cable trench at
s/s end with a
Spare Cable

Take up DP
structure with
Cross
Boundary
3 Protection No. 66,786 71,191 82,747 75,549
1
using 116 mm
x 100 mm x 11
mtr. Long RSJ
Pole

11 kV Indoor
Cable Box
suitable for
4 No. 17,500 21,335 17,950 27,745
240 Sq. mm 5
XLPE Cable
including RMU

11 kV Outdoor
Cable Box
5 suitable for No. 7,000 8,692 7,930 13,352
2
240 Sq. mm
XLPE Cable

6 3CX11kV, 240 KM 4,63,56,848 5,14,19,407 5,67,44,648 4,06,29,000

29
Sq. mm, XLPE

Page 21 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Alu. Cable
including
laying by
digging the
cable trench
with a spare
cable (14.5 KM
x 2 = 29 KM)

3 ways RMU (3
7 No. 4,14,180 4,40,596 4,90,595 3,40,000
LBS) 1

11 kV Straight
through joint
8 suitable for No. 5,22,000 3,76,617 4,65,624 6,71,872
58
240 Sq. mm
XLPE Cable

11 kV DP
Structure with
9 A.B. Switch No. 3,33,930 3,55,955 4,13,735 3,50,075
5
using 11 mtr.
RSJ Poles

CTPT
Structure with
CTPT and TVM
10 considering Set 10,46,128 9,16,144 9,87,704 10,75,408
8
average 10
Connections
per Feeder

Total Cost of
the Feeder of
11 14.5 KM with Rs. 4,93,23,422 5,43,42,815 5,99,35,258 4,37,60,201
one Spare
Cable

Per kVA
Cost
(Considering Rs./
12 12,331 13,586 14,984 10,940
Feeder KVA
Capacity -
4000 kVA)

Average Rs./
13 12,960
Cost KVA

• Based on normative average feeder cost and load catering capacity of

4000 kVA, the per kVA cost is worked out and tabulated as under:

Page 22 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
Normative Feeder
Voltage Type Per kVA Charges (Rs/KVA)
Length (KM)

O/H 5.5 2000

11/22 KV
U/G 14.5 12960

The DISCOMs have very limited 22 kV network, therefore, to avoid

complications in calculations and recovery of the cost, in case of 22 kV
power demand also, per kVA cost worked out for 11 kV network will be
recovered.
(1.18) The Petitioner submitted that the per kVA-based estimate charges as
worked out as per above methodology shall be applicable with following
terms and conditions:
(ii) Per kVA charge is in lieu of infrastructure to be developed by
DISCOM only and shall be applicable for technically feasible cases
only.
(iv) The uniform Per kVA charges shall be applicable for all new
demand at HT level (i.e. new connection as well as additional load).
(1.19) The Petitioner proposes to recover actual cost from the prospective
consumer in the following conditions:
(i) If consumer request for dedicated feeder even though the
proposed load can be catered from existing network/by upgrading
existing network.
(ii) For customized request like shifting of metering point,
conversion of existing overhead network by either AB cable or
Underground cable.
(iii) Where separate infrastructural network developed under
Critical Infrastructure Project, where Government's / Developer's
contribution is involved, since specialized network with RCC Trench,
special equipment such as Ring Main Unit (RMU), HTMC (with
VCB/LBS with CTPT in one closed unit installation on plinth level)
etc.
(iv) Towards way leave, deforestation, GIDC permission etc.
(1.21) The Petitioner has prayed as under:
a) To allow recovery of Per kVA based estimate charges for release
of new HT connection/load extension.
b) To approve the methodology for determination of Per kVA based
estimate charges for new HT connection/load extension, as
mentioned in the present petition.
c) To decide recovery of Per kVA rate of Rs. 2000 Per kVA for
release of new HT Connection / load extension within 11 kV / 22 kV
up to 5.5 km overhead network and Rs. 12,960 Per kVA for release of
new HT connection / load extension with 11 kV / 22 kV up to 14.5
km underground network.
d) To continue recovery of actual expenditure in case of (i)
overhead network above 5.5 km, (ii) underground network above 14.5
km, (iii) railway crossing and (iv) highway crossing over and above the
Per kVA rate.

Page 23 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
e) To allow for revision in Per kVA based estimate charges every
year based on current year standard cost data of DISCOMs prevailing
in the month of March for its applicability of ensuring year.
While passing order Hon’ble GERC has observed as under:
(11.8) After going through the submissions of the Petitioners and the
objectors, and after detailed analysis, looking to the present circumstances
and to encourage ease of doing business, the Commission is considering
the Petitioner’s following requests to recover expenditure for providing HT
connections / load extension and decides to:
a) Approve the methodology for determination of Per kVA-based
estimate charges for providing new HT connection / load extension at
11 / 22 kV up to 5.5 KM.
b) Continue recovery of actual expenditure over and above the Per
kVA rate in case of:
(i) Overhead HT network of 11 / 22 kV above 5.5 KM for
additional network greater than 5.5 KM;
(ii) Railway crossing;
(III) Highway crossing.
(11.9) The Commission in order to encourage the MSMEs and other small
entrepreneurs and to encourage ease of doing business for the licensees,
hereby decides to charge per kVA rate for releasing new HT connections /
load extension at 11 / 22 kV network up to 5.5 KM as mentioned below:
(i) The rate for the new HT connections / load extension up to or
less than 500 kVA shall be Rs. 1,500 / kVA.
(ii) The rate for the new HT connections / load extension above
500 kVA shall be Rs. 1,800 / kVA.
This shall be applicable for all the HT applicants (for new connection / load
extension) for which the estimates have not been issued as on the date of
issue of this Order.
From the above, Per KVA charges approved by the Hon’ble GERC for the
overhead network for all new HT connection/load extension.
Now, in the case of the Appellant, as per the submission made by the
parties. electric network 11KV U/G feeder is existing near the premises of
the Appellant, the Respondent had reutilized the existing U/G cable which
was idle one since disconnection of earlier HT connection No.20730 of the
Appellant i.e., 2018.
4.4. The question arise herunder is whether the per KVA cost is recoverable from
the Appellant or not.
On the said issue, it is seen that Exising 11KV feeder is hybrid network
having 2.4KM underground cable and 2.185KM overhead network as per
the single line diagram submitted by the Respondent. As per the statement
of the Respondent technical feasibility was found on that 11KV Technovaa
feeder which is having a hybrid network. As per the % HTVR calculation
sheet the Respondent has shown a 3646 KVA load and with including
proposed load of 1500KVA, total 5276KVA, calculated % HTVR is 6.14
which is within the permissible limit.
4.5. The Recovery of per KVA charges approved for new HT connection/load
extension by the GERC. As per requirement of new load demand and in
case of additional load demand, if any, network creation involved or not
involved the Respondent has to cater the Power Supply to the Applicant as
per technical feasibility of the Electric Network looking to the provisions of

Page 24 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
GERC., even though per KVA charges shown recoverable from the
Appellant. Hence, I am of the opinion that in the present case of the
Appellant, existing 11 KV feeder of hybrid network existing at doorstep of
the Appellant and no any execution of work needed but for whole electric
network developed earlier by the Respondent. The GERC has rationalized
the cost on average basis for granting the New HT connection and for
additional load demand. Though, Petitioners had filed petition for levy of per
KVA charges and mentioned the calculation table for deriving the per KVA
cost but while granting prayers of the petitioners, GERC has derived per
KVA charges and ordered as per Para No.11.9 as shown above. Therefore,
the argument made by the Appellant as per para 2.3(3) and 2.3(4) is not
correct and not accepted.
The order passed by the GERC in the said petitionNo.1829 of 2019 directing
for recovery of per KVA charges in two slab as shown above. No specific type
of overhead networks development pointed out while deriving the per KVA
charges in the order passed by the GERC. In this situation, proportionate
cost i.e., per KVA methodology as approved by GERC for deriving the per
KVA cost and in this case for 1500 KVA load demand @ rate of 1800/- per
KVA to be recoverable by the Respondent.
4.6. The second issue that arises herein is whether the levy of underground
cable cost in the estimate is eligible for recovery. To address the above
issues, it is required to read the provision of Electricity Supply Code and
related matters regulation,2015, the Relevant regulation 4.33(1) read as
under:
4.33 The demand note shall contain following details:
(1) Details of the works (including service line) to be undertaken for
providing electricity supply;
Provided that where the estimates are issued on the basis of
per kW of demanded load, the estimate need not contain details
of works to be undertaken.
First of all, it is seen from the records that underground cable was existing
to the premises of the Appellant where the HT connection is demanded. As
per the submission of the Respondent, in the said premises earlier HT
connection No.20730 was released in the year 2012 and cost has been
recovered by the Respondent at that time. The said HT connection No.20730
was PDC on 01.11.2018 and the meter and CTPT were removed by the
Respondent from the location of the HT connection No.20730. The
underground cable was there at the premises of the Appellant and that was
not removed by the Respondent since the year 2018. It is here to note that
in case of permanently disconnection of any services, the Respondent
should have to remove the service line and part of the distribution line
feeding to that PDC consumer with recovering the requisite demand as per
the provisions of Supply Code.
On the query of not removal of the underground cable from the said
location the Respondent submitted that it was an idle underground cable
network and said isolated network will be reutilized as and when required
after recovering charges as per the prevailing norms. In the case of the
Appellant, 1.0 KM underground network was idle and isolated and was
utilized for granting a new HT connection of 1500 KVA load demand. This
idle cable was already laid earlier which was utilized by the Respondent to
provide HT connection to the Appellant.

Page 25 of 26
 Case No.39/2021
GERC has passed an order dated 07.07.2020 in Petition No. 1829/2019
and approved the methodology for recovery of per KVA cost in case of overhead
networks. The average cost incurred according to latest cost data as published by
the Distribution licensee shall be used as the yard stick for determining the per
KVA cost of the consumers. In this case existing 11KV feeder is having hybrid
network i.e., Overhead + Underground from where the Respondent had prepared
proposal for new demand of the Appellant. Ideally, the theme of having per KVA
cost charging from the prospective applicants are to share proportionate cost in
tune with the requirement of KVA load demand of the applicants with
consideration of technical feasibility of Electric network. When estimate need to
issue with consideration of per kVA cost, actual cost of materials utilized by the
DISCOM cannot be recoverable. The purpose for uniform charges/cost among the
prospective applicants cannot be survive, if actual cost shown recovered separately
along with per KVA cost in the estimate.
The underground cable of the existing length of 1.0 KM reutilization
by the Respondent after necessary testing as per technical requirement and
no actual material incurred/used for laying such electric network.
Therefore, it does not come under part of actual work carried out on the
underground electric network development, and hence the charges are
shown in the estimate at Sr. No. 2 ,3, and 4 against the tapping from
underground cable networks including lying 1.0 KM is not valid and said
charges are not recoverable from the Appellant.
4.7. I order accordingly.
4.8. No order as to costs.
4.9. With this order, representation/Application stands disposed of.

S/d.
(D R Parmar)
Electricity Ombudsman
Gujarat State.
Ahmedabad.
Date: 04.12.2021.

Page 26 of 26