Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pseb And Ors vs Rasan Detergents on 26 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:057383
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.04.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s Rasan Detergents ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-
appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1995 passed by
the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997 passed by the
First Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent was a consumer under the appellant-PSEB and was engaged in
manufacturing of detergents, cakes, soap etc. For the purposes of running its
factory, it had obtained an LS-7 electric connection. The connected load of
the plaintiff-respondent was 349.723 KW. The plaintiff-respondent also has
an additional connected load of 36.640 KW for lighter purposes. The
appellant-PSEB imposed peak load hours restrictions from 5.00 pm to
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057383
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M) -2-
9.00 pm. It was the case set up that on an earlier occasion the plaintiff-
respondent was found running the factory during the peak load hours
restrictions and for violation of the said restriction a sum of Rs.35,000/- was
imposed as a penalty on the plaintiff-respondent which he paid on
11.01.1990. It was further the case set up that on 01.08.1990 the factory of
the plaintiff-respondent was again checked by a Flying Squad at 08.20 pm
and it was found that the plaintiff-respondent was running the factory and
load of 35.294 KW was being utilized. Since it was the second offence, a
penalty to the tune of Rs.70,000/- @ Rs.200/- per KW was imposed. The
plaintiff-respondent challenged the imposition of this penalty of Rs.70,000/-
and also the action of the defendant-appellants in disconnecting its electricity
connection. It is apt to note that during the pendency of the proceedings the
connection was restored. It was further the case set up that the Sub
Divisional Officer of the concerned Sub Division vide letter No.2340 dated
28.08.1986 had permitted the plaintiff-respondent to use 50% of the
electricity of the contract demand during the peak load hours restrictions. It
was further the pleaded case that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to use
the electricity upto 50% of the contract demand as per the Notification
issued by the appellants-PSEB. It was further the case set up in the plaint
that only 3/4 workers were present who were cleaning the machines. As per
the report of the raiding party, the running load of the plaintiff-respondent
was 35.294 KW and the plaintiff-respondent had an additional sanctioned
load of 36.640 KW for lighter purposes. On notice the defendant-appellants
herein appeared and took the stand that on raiding the plaintiff-respondent
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057383
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M) -3-
was found running the factory during the peak load hours restrictions and on
an earlier occasion the premises were found running during the peak load
hours restrictions and hence an amount of Rs.35,000/- was imposed as
penalty which was paid on 11.01.1990 and yet again on 01.08.1990 another
raid was conducted and the plaintiff-respondent was again found running the
factory during the peak load hours restrictions and it was, therefore, pleaded
that as per the instructions of the PSEB (Ex.DW2/A), connection of the
plaintiff-respondent was liable to be disconnected and being the second
offence, the connection was disconnected and a penalty of Rs.70,000/- @
Rs.200/- per KW was imposed. It was further the stand taken that the
plaintiff-respondent was a habitual offender. Replication was filed denying
the contents made in the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint.
3. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed
by the Trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiff company is continuous
process industry for the purpose of power supply and
has been declared as such by the defendants ? OPP
2. Whether the memo dated 02.08.90 passed by the
defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction
prayed for ? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
5. Whether the suits based on false and vexatious
claim and defendants are entitled special costs of
Rs.5000/- ? OPD
6. Whether the suit has not been filed through an
authorized person ? OPD
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057383
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M) -4-
7. Relief.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.1995
decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
defendant-appellants which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 17.04.1997. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that as per the instructions (Ex.DW3/8), only 5% of the sanctioned load
could be utilized during the peak load hours restrictions and since the factory
was found running and was utilizing the load of 35.294 KW hence the same
was in violation of the instructions and the penalty was rightly imposed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent
would contend that vide letter dated 05.07.1983 (Ex.P3) written by the
Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, PSEB, Patiala it was certified that
factory of the plaintiff-respondent was treated as a continuous process
industry for the purpose of power supply. It is further the contention of the
learned counsel that the said letter was never revoked. The learned counsel
for the plaintiff-respondent would further contend that as per the instructions
(Ex.DW3/8), all continuous process industries and essential industries fed
from independent feeders were to restrict their demand to 50% of the
sanctioned contract demand during the peak load hours restrictions and that
the plaintiff-respondent had LS-7 connection with a sanctioned load of
349.723 KW and an additional load of 36.640 KW for lighter purposes and
hence utilization was well below the 50% of the sanctioned contract demand.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057383
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M) -5-
8. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that the
plaintiff-respondent was using only 35.294 KW. This is an admitted fact and
has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants.
Both the Courts concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondent was not
using the load more than the permissible load. In the present case the
sanctioned load was 349.723 KW and an additional load of 36.640 KW was
sanctioned for lighter purposes. Vide letter dated 05.07.1983 written by the
Superintending Engineer, DS Circle, PSEB, Patiala, it was certified that the
factory was a continuous process industry for the purpose of power supply.
The learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to show a
single document on the record that this letter was ever revoked. Further still,
instructions (Ex.DW3/8) issued by the appellants-PSEB read as under :
"In super-session of all the previous instructions regarding
Peak Load Restrictions, Evening Peak Load Hour Restrictions
on industries may be imposed as under:-
1 All General Industries except S.P. Not allowed to run
category (with load upto 20 KW) at all
whether fed from Independent
feeder, Mixed urban/Industrial
feeders.
2 All Continuous Process Industries To restrict their
& Essential Industries fed from demand to 50% of
Independent feeders (... Furnaces their sanctioned
have been excluded from this Contract Demand)
category)
The relaxations admissible during evening peak load hours
hence-forth will be as under:-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:057383
RSA-1990-1997 (O&M) -6-
(a) MS & LS General Industrial consumers may be allowed to
use power upto 5% of their sanctioned Connected Load
subject to a maximum of 5KW for office lighting and water
supply.
(b) Industries located at Goindwal Sahib Industrial Complex
continue to be exempted from the purview of Peak Load
Hour Restrictions.
(c) All categories of consumers in the border districts of
Amritsar, Gurdaspur and Feorzepur are also exempted
from Evening Peak Load Hour Restrictions."
9. A perusal of the above reproduced instructions clearly reveals
that for all continuous process industries, they were directed to restrict their
demand to 50% of their sanctioned contract demand during the peak load
hours restrictions. In the present case, the load being utilized at the time of
the raid was only 35.294 KW and hence it cannot be said that the load being
utilized was beyond 50% of the sanctioned contract demand. The findings
recorded by the Courts thus warrant no interference.
10. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires
determination by this Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
26.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
