M/S M G Stone Crusher vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 7803 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S M G Stone Crusher vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 15 April, 2024

                                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557



                                Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

CWP-20035-2018                                                              -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

215                                           CWP-20035-2018
                                              Date of decision: 15.04.2024

M.G. Stone Crusher                                              ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation                                 ...Respondents
Limited & ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Present :        Ms. Arzoo Modi, Advocate for
                 Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate,
                 for the petitioner.

                 Ms. Khushboo Garg, Advocate for
                 Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate,
                 for respondents No.1 and 2.

                 Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate and
                 Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate,
                 for respondent No.3.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated

24.11.2017(Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1-Punjab State

Power Corporation Limited (for short 'PSPCL') as well as against the

order dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3-

Lokpal (Ombudsman), Electricity, whereby the appeal of the petitioner

was dismissed and the claim of the petitioner for seeking refund of the

excess amount deposited by it was declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner firm had set up a stone crusher and for the said purpose, he

applied to the respondent-PSPCL for release of load of

498KW/498KVA under LS category, on 29.09.2014. A demand notice

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

was issued to the petitioner on 30.09.2014 for depositing service

connection charges of Rs.10,95,600/- calculated @ Rs.2200/- per KVA

on total load of 498KVA. As per the condition of this demand notice,

the petitioner was required to deposit the demanded amount on or

before 29.03.2015. Due to certain personal exigencies, the petitioner

was not in a position to deposit the same before the due date. Hence, an

application was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-

department for seeking extension of time to deposit the dues. On

consideration of the said application sent by the petitioner, the time for

depositing the said amount was extended upto 26.06.2015. The amount

was, thereafter, deposited by the petitioner on 05.05.2015 for release of

electricity connection.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

respondent-department in the meantime issued circular No.60/2014

relating to Standard Cost Data and as per this circular, it was ordered

that it would be applicable in relation to the demand notices issued on

or after 01.01.2015 to the consumers requiring supply of electricity or

additional load/demand. She further contends that the service

connection charges were reduced as per the said circular and that the

petitioner became entitled to a refund of the excess amount deposited.

A request was, accordingly, made by the petitioner that the respondents

cannot retain any charges beyond what it is entitled to as per the said

circular and that the petitioner being entitled to make a payment upto

29.03.2015 even as per the original circular, any accrued subsequent

benefit has to enure in favour of the petitioner. A reference is also

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

made to the sanction granted by the respondents on 29.09.2014 as per

which the Board had promised to supply the electricity connection,

subject to the condition to deposit the expenses at the present rate and in

the event of any change, the consumer was required to pay the

difference. She contends that the above said condition imbibes that in

the event of any change in dues, the difference in the expenses are to

enure in favour of or are to be dishcarged by a consumer. Hence every

accrued benefit also ought to be transferred to the consumer. Only a

liability could not have been fastened to prejudice the consumer and

respondent-PSPCL could not have denied the benefits that would have

accrued in terms of the said clause.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents No.1 and 2

contends that the petitioner cannot take benefit of the circular

No.60/2014 since the said circular was applicable only with respect to

the demand notices issued on or after 01.01.2015. Since the demand

notice in the present case was issued on 29.09.2014, hence the liability

as per the first demand notice was to be discharged by the petitioner.

The authorities below have rightly considered the applicability of the

provisions, which is not a subject matter of the challenge in the present

writ petition, and have upheld the demand.

5. Rebutting the above, learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently argues that even the Lok Pal (Ombudsman), Electricity

notices that there is an ambiguity in the demand notice but it did not

provide any provision of refund. Hence, the claim of the

appellant/petitioner was rejected on account of such ambiguity. She

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

thus contends that a benefit of an ambiguity has to be constructed

against the author of the document and the respondent-PSPCL cannot

be allowed to keep the extra amount deposited and the benefit of

subsequent notification ought to be given to the consumer as per the

mandate of the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

have gone through the documents on record with their help.

7. The factual aspects as regard the raising of the demand vide

communication dated 29.09.2014 is not in dispute. It is also undisputed

that the demand amount was deposited by the petitioner on 05.05.2015

after having been granted extension of time to deposit the same. Even

as per the original sanction letter, the demanded amount could be

deposited on or before 29.03.2015 i.e. after 01.01.2015. A perusal of

the letter of approval issued by the respondents undisputedly provides

that the consumer is liable to pay any difference of the charges that may

be so determined by the appropriate authority prevalent at the time of

issuance of connection. As the period for making the deposit of the

demand was extended till after 01.01.2015, thus, it is required to be

seen by this Court as to whether the benefit that accrued in favour of the

consumer even as per the original sanction letter could be denied solely

because the demand was conveyed prior to 01.01.2015 even though the

consumer was to make the deposit much after 01.01.2015. It has also

remained undisputed that the service connection charges which were to

be demanded have undergone a deduction thereafter.

8. Circular No.60/2014 makes a reference to the Standard

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

Cost Data approved by the Commission, to be applicable with effect

from the demand notices issued after 01.01.2015. However, it is noted

that the said circular is silent with respect to the issue where demand

notice may have been issued on or before 01.01.2015, but where the

said demand notice is valid even after 01.01.2015 when revised rate

became applicable. The mandate of the said circular is hence required

to be read in accordance with the conditions incorporated in the letter of

approval. The relevant clause reads thus:-

"2. Board promises to supply subject to the condition that you deposit the given below expenses which are present rate. If there is any change in the expenses at the time of issuance of connection/load then you have to pay the differences."

9. The reading of the clause only in favour of the respondent-

distribution licensee would be incongruent and would confine the

benefits only to a distribution licensee and will increase the costs of the

consumer even though the Electricity Act also mandates that the

Commission and the Courts are required to watch out for the interest of

the consumer.

10. An element of continuity of the letter of sanction in the

demand was, thus, prescribed in condition No.2 and the circular also

mandates that in the event any unrevised demand is raised in a demand

notice issued after 01.01.2015, in such eventuality the revised demand

amount is to be released. Another crucial fact which is noticed by this

Court is that an application was submitted by the petitioner for seeking

extension of time for depositing the demanded amount which was

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

accepted by the respondents and the payment was made on 05.05.2015.

This element of continuity in the demand being raised has to be seen in

the context of the sanction granted. The consumer has been held liable

to pay higher charge. I see no reason as to why the benefit of reduced

service connection charges ought not to be conferred on such consumer.

11. It is necessary also at this junction to refer to the analysis

report by the Electricity Ombudsman, which reads as under:-

"5. Analysis:

The issue requiring adjudication is the legitimacy of the plea of the petitioner for refund of the Service Connection Charges deposited (on 05.05.2015) against Demand Notice issued (on 30.09.2014) before their revision in respect of Demand Notices issued on or after 01.01.2015 as per provisions of Commercial Circular (CC) No.60/2014 issued by the Chief Engineer/Commercial PSPCL, Patiala.

The points emerged are analysed and deliberated as under:

(i) The petitioner applied on 29.09.2014 for release of new connection under Large Supply Category for load of 498 KW and Contract Demand of 498KVA. The Demand Notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 30.09.2014, which was valid for six months i.e. upto 29.03.2015. The petitioner did not deposit the SCC, within the stipulated period, statedly due to personal reasons and requested on 20.03.2015 for extension of validity of the Demand Notice by depositing the requisite fee.

Accordingly, the extension in demand notice

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

was granted to the petitioner upto 26.06.2015 by the respondent.

I find that the petitioner, in its petition and also during oral submissions, referred to the Clause 2 of the demand notice dated 30.09.2014, which reads as under:

"Board promises to supply subject to the condition that you deposit the given below expenses which are at present rate. If there is any change in the expenses at the time of issuance of connection/load then you have to pay the difference."

I observe that the aforesaid clause mentioned about the liability of the petitioner to pay the difference on account of SCC at the time of actual installation but nothing was mentioned therein about the obligation of the PSPCL to refund the difference, if any, on account of reduced Service Connection Charges (SCC) applicable at the time of release of Load/installation of the connection.

(ii) I have gone through the approval of the Standard Cost Data, conveyed by the PSERC, vide Memo. No.13579/PSERC/DTJ-50/Vol-IV dated 18.12.2014, on the basis of which, the CC No.60/2014 dated 30.12.2014 was issued by the Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSPCL, Patiala. In the approval ibid, it has been mentioned that:

"The Standard Cost Data approved by the Commission shall be applicable to the demand notices to be issued on or after 1.1.2015 to the applicants requiring supply of electricity or additional load/demand. The Cost Data shall continue to be in force till it is

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

revised or modified by the Commission."

In the present case, the demand notice was issued on 30.09.2014 in view of the petitioner's requirement and the same was valid upto 29.03.2015 as per normal rules. Further extension was allowed, on the request of the petitioner upto on 26.06.2015. I observe that new Connection/Load was actually required by the petitioner at the time of applying for it i.e. on 29.09.2014. It is another matter that the petitioner did not deposit the Service Connection Charges (SCC) after issuance of demand notice on 30.09.2014 and deposited the same on 05.05.2015. The above directions of Hon'ble PSERC make it amply clear that the Standard Cost Data approved by the Commission shall be applicable to the demand notices issued on or after 01.01.2015 while demand notice to the petitioner was issued on 30.09.2014.

From the above analysis, it is concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay SCC as per demand notice dated 30.09.2014, which was issued in accordance with the provisions contained in Supply Code-2007.

6. Decisions:

As a sequel of above discussions, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to relief claimed as its case is covered under the applicable Regulations prevailing at the time of issue of demand notice (30.09.2014), accordingly, the petitioner has to pay per KW/KVA charges or actual expenditure incurred, whichever is higher, as per provisions contained in Regulation 9.1.1(i) (b) of Supply Code- 2007.

12. It is a well settled principle in law that "equity follows the

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

law". The above said legal maxim "aequitas sequitur legem"

emphasizes that equity or fairness should be applied in accordance with

law. Equity should thus compliment established legal principles. In

legal terms, it would mean that if a contract or agreement includes

clauses that establish liability or obligations for one party, those clauses

could potentially extend benefits to that party; if circumstances arise

where they are entitled to benefits under the agreement.

13. Hence, if a contract specifies that a Company is liable for

damages caused by its actions it would also likely be entitled to any

benefit afforded under the same contract.

14. It is evident from a perusal of the clause and the judgment

that the Electricity Ombudsman has restricted its award and the benefit

due to the petitioner only on the ground that the said circular does not

talk about the obligation of PSPCL to refund the difference, if any, on

account of reduced service connection charges applicable at the time of

release of load/installation of the connection.

15. I am of the view that even if the contention of the

respondent licensee that circular No.60/2014 does not enure in favour

of the petitioner is accepted, however, the respondents cannot wriggle

out of the obligation enshrined in the sanction granted on 30.09.2014,

which fastens the ultimate liability on a consumer, is as applicable on

the date of release of service connection charges. Thus, where a

consumer is liable to pay the charge which becomes applicable as on

the date of release of service connection, it cannot be said that the said

clause was to be read only for paying additional liability and no benefit

9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050557

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050557

can be claimed by the consumer for reduced charges, on a meaningful

reading of the said clause.

16. Considering it from any of the said prospective, the present

petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated

24.11.2017(Annexure P-7) as well as order dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure

P-9) are set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of

reduced service connection charges as on the date when the electricity

connection was released to it. The respondent-PSPCL is directed that

the benefit be recalculated and be credited in favour of the petitioner

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order.

15.04.2024                                         (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
monika                                                    JUDGE

             Whether reasoned/speaking:              Yes
             Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                        10 of 10