Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.S.E.B vs Amar Nath Kochhar on 21 October, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 RSA-2335-1995 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
AMAR NATH KOCHAR .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-
appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dated 06.04.1992 and
24.05.1995 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
respectively.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent herein is a consumer of the defendant-appellants at Jaitu and his
account number is No.LS-8. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-
respondent is running an ice factory along with cotton ginning factory and
the said factory falls within the definition of 'General Industry' as
categorized by the defendant-appellants. The ice factory has specifically
been stated to be non-seasonal but cotton ginning is a seasonal factory. It
was further averred that there is no definition of both the factories when
combined but factory of the plaintiff-respondent has been treated as non-
205 RSA-2335-1995 (O&M) -2-
seasonal factory since its inception. The plaintiff-respondent never took
benefit of seasonal factory. On 10.08.1990 the defendant-appellants
increased the tariff of seasonal factory from ₹55 K.V.A. to ₹165 K.V.A.
The tariff was changed as minimum charges by the defendant-appellants.
The plaintiff-respondent had paid the bills according to the charges of
general category of mill i.e. non-seasonal. It was further averred that the
defendant-appellants had sent two bills, one for ₹3,953 vide bill No.1 as
difference of minimum charges and second bill No.24 for payment of
minimum charges at new rates for the month of September. It was averred
that the factory is non-seasonal and falls within the category of general mill
and hence not liable to pay the new rates. Hence the present suit by the
plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-
appellants from disconnecting the electricity.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants wherein it
was pleaded that the factory of the plaintiff-respondent did not fall under the
definition of general industry and rather the factory fell within the definition
of seasonal industry w.e.f. 10.08.1990 as per the Notification No.8 dated
09.08.1990. It was further pleaded that previously the factory of the
plaintiff-respondent was considered as general industry under clause
'General Industry', however, after the said Notification it was to be treated
as seasonal industry. Replication was filed denying the averments made in
the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issued
were framed :
205 RSA-2335-1995 (O&M) -3-
1) Whether the factory run by the plaintiff is of a non-
seasonal category. If so, its effect ? OPP
2) Whether the claim made by the defendant is illegal
etc. etc. ? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
4) Relief.
5. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 06.04.1992. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the
defendant-appellants which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.1995. Hence, the present
regular second appeal by the defendant-appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that circular clearly distinguished between non-seasonal and general industry
and that the cotton ginning mill fell within the definition of seasonal industry
and hence a different tariff rate was to be applied.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent
would contend that the connection was granted to the plaintiff-respondent 30
years prior to the filing of the present suit and at no point of time was the
Notification No.8 dated 09.08.1990 ever brought to the notice of the
plaintiff-respondent. Infact, the tariff was changed suo motu without any
intimation to the plaintiff-respondent.
8. Heard.
205 RSA-2335-1995 (O&M) -4-
9. In the present case the bills, which are the subject matter of
challenge in the present suit, were sent to the plaintiff-respondent on the
basis of a Notification No.8 dated 09.08.1990 wherein the tariff for seasonal
industry was changed and it was further stated in the said Notification that
there would be a revised tariff from 10.08.1990 for seasonal industry.
Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to convince
this Court that any notice was given qua the change in tariff to the plaintiff-
respondent. Further still, a perusal of the Notification No.8 dated 09.08.1990
reveals that the seasonal benefits in respect of seasonal industry were to be
admissible only if the connection existed in a totally independent premises
properly separated and partitioned from other non-seasonal industry. In the
present case, admittedly, there was a common connection and the premises
was also common. That being so, there would be no applicability of the
above said circular in the present case.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. 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 merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed off.
21.10.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
