Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... vs M/S Essen Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd on 5 November, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144266-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(104) LPA-2223-2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 05.11.2024
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & others ......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s Essen Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd. & others .....Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present:- Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the appellant (s).
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) :
CM-6170-LPA-2024
Application for placing on record the test report dated
03.10.2013 as Annexure A-1, is allowed, in view of the averments made in
the application, duly supported by affidavit of the official. Same is taken
on record. Office to append the same at appropriate place.
CM stand disposed of.
CM-5290-LPA-2024
Application for condoning the delay of 152 days in filing the
appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application duly
supported by affidavit of the official. Delay of 152 days in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144266-DB
LPA-2223-2024 (O&M) -2-
CM-5291-LPA-2024
Exemption application is allowed, as prayed for.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-2223-2024 (O&M)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
05.02.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-25855-2018
titled M/s Essen Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation
Ltd. & others.
2. Vide the said judgment, the Learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition and set aside the notice dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-1)
wherein a demand of Rs.24,87,613/- had been raised along with deposit of
Rs.1,76,000/- on account of the fact that the consumer was liable to pay
the difference of the general tariff and the Power Intensive Unit (PIU)
from 01.01.2014, as per the commercial circular No.28/2012 dated
06.09.2012 (Annexure R-1). The said demand was on account of the fact
that Billet Heaters had been installed as per the A&A Form submitted by
the respondent herein. The consumer thereafter approached the Redressal
Forum set up by the Corporation for the consumers against the said notice
which was rejected vide order dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) and
further upheld by the Ombudsman on 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-4). The
said orders have been set aside by the Learned Single Judge by holding
that if any amounts has been deposited, the same shall be adjusted in the
subsequent consumption charges of the consumer in terms of applicable
rules and regulations.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144266-DB
LPA-2223-2024 (O&M) -3-
3. The factual matrix on the basis of which the writ petition had
been allowed by the Learned Single Judge is that factually no Billet
Heaters were installed in the premises of the consumer and the demand
had been raised on account of the declaration given in the A&A form and
thus, the arrears demanded were not justified. On account of the
subsequent circular issued, the difference had been charged between the
general industry and the PIU on account of the fact that PSERC order
dated 28.10.2023 in the petition filed and thus, superseding the
commercial circular No.28/2012 dated 06.09.2012. It was also noticed
that the bill was being raised for general industry of the consumer and
there was no occasion to realize the mistake and seek the correction and
the awareness only came after the demand had been raised on account of
the difference in tariff. There was also report of the Additional
Superintending Engineer (Enforcement), PSPCL that there was no Billet
Heaters installed by the consumer and therefore, only on account of the
declaration in the A&A form, the consumer could not be subjected to pay
a higher tariff. It was, thus, noticed that the authorities below had acted in
a ministerial manner without considering the factual matrix of the report
that there was no installation of the Billet Heaters and the consumer could
not be compelled to pay higher tariff.
4. We have examined the paperbook and it transpires that
apparently at one point of time, the consumer wanted the Billet Heaters to
be installed. It was, in such circumstances, the test report was given on
03.10.2013 (Annexure A-1), which is now placed on record. After the
demand had been raised, it was its case that the Billet Heaters were never
purchased and neither installed and the connection had been checked on
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144266-DB
LPA-2223-2024 (O&M) -4-
various occasions but the Billet Heaters were never installed at any point
of time though the appellant had submitted in his A&A form that two
number of Billet Heaters of 300 KW & 250 KW had been installed. The
feasibility of installation the same was dropped and it was decided to use
the oil fired furnace and even at this point of time, the heating work was
done by the fire furnace and therefore, the consumption never exceeded
500 KVA except some marginal increase. It is thus its case that the
demand was on the basis of the Billet Heaters installed and as per the
circular, in view of the order of PSERC, ithad to be treated as PIU and
once the Billet Heaters were not there, the demand on the basis of the PIU
had wrongly been raised.
5. The issue, thus, lies in a very narrow controversy that for the
non-installation of the Billet Heaters and in the absence of any findings
that they were actually installed, the charge by the appellant-Corporation
has rightly been held to be not leviable. It is, in such circumstances, the
Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, upholding the orders
of the authorities below, only on the principle that he had given a
declaration that he had installed Billet Heaters and in the absence of any
factual finding that the Billet Heaters had actually been installed since
there is nothing on record to show that after the test report dated
03.10.2013, the officials of the Corporation had visited the premises and
found that the Billet Heaters had been installed.
6. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the view taken by the Learned Single Judge is
based on pragmatic principle that a person cannot be charged for
something which he has never used though he might have applied for the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144266-DB
LPA-2223-2024 (O&M) -5-
said usage and submitted his A&A form. It is in such circumstances, the
Learned Single Judge had exercised his extraordinary writ jurisdiction and
set aside the demand notice and the orders passed by the authorities. We
do not find that the said judgment of the Learned Single Judge suffers
from any infirmity which would warrant interference as nothing could be
pointed out that the consumer had benefitted in any manner by projecting
the fact that on account of the higher load, he had gained any benefit of
electricity at a subsidized rate or its usage in the peak hours in preference
to the general load consumers. Since there is no such attempt by the
consumer to take any benefit on account of the declaration which had been
given of the alleged installation of the Billet Heaters which was never
done, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order.
7. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present
appeal is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
05.11.2024 (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
5 of 5
