Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S International Stone Crushi vs Haryana Elec.Board on 10 November, 2025
RSA No. 3674 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3674 of 1998
1998(O&M)
Reserved on: 06.11.2025
.2025
Pronounced on:10.11
.11.2025
M/s International Stone Crushing Company
Appellant
...Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors.
O
...Respondents
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate
For the appellant.
Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate and
Mr. Rishabh Rana, Advocate
For the respondent.
***
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against partial
reversal of the judgment & decree dated 06.04.1994 passed by the learned Trial
Court, whereby the plaintiff's suit for declaration was decreed. However, first
appellate court of learned
rned District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment & decree dated
19.02.1998, partly accepted the appeal of the defendants, thereby upholding
the recovery of ₹10,244.20
10,244.20 on account of the difference between Large Supply
(LS) and Medium Supply (MS) tariff, while ma
maintaining
intaining the trial Court's finding
restraining the recovery of ₹15,342/- till disposal of the previously instituted
suit.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their original status
before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in stone
crushing and supply business. As per plaintiff, iitt had applied for an MS category
electricity connection and, after completing requisite formalities, was sanctioned
1 of 4
Connection No. MS-39
MS 39 with a sanctioned load of 75.200 KW. The plaintiff
claimed regular payment of electricity bills without default. The dispute arose
when the defendants issued an energy bill dated 13.08.1990 for ₹15,342/
15,342/-
towards alleged arrears and service rental charges. The plaintiff challenged this
thi
demand and obtained an interim stay against its recovery on 10.09.1990.
4. Subsequently, another bill dated 10.11.1990 was issued demanding
₹37,932/-,, including ₹10,244.20
10,244.20 as arrears towards the difference between LS
and MS charges for six months (May-October
(May October 1990).The plaintiff contended that
it had already applied for reduction of sanctioned load from 75.200 KW to
65.950 KW, and since actual consumption never exceeded 65.950 KW, charging
LS tariff was arbitrary and contrary to the Electricity Act and the Regulations of
the Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB). Accordingly, a declaration was
sought that the bill dated 10.11.1990 was illegal and void, along with
consequential relief of permanent injunction against disconnection of supply.
5. The defendants justified the demand, asserting that as per Sales
Circular No. 1/88, any load exceeding 70 KW falls under LS tariff. They
maintained that since the plaintiff's sanctioned load was 75.200 KW, billing
under LS category was correct.
correct. They further clarified that though the plaintiff
applied for load reduction, it was never sanctioned, and reconnection was
permissible only at the previously sanctioned load. Hence, recovery of LS tariff
for the relevant period was claimed to be lawful.
lawful.
6. The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's plea, holding that the
demand of ₹10,244.20
10,244.20 towards LS-MS
LS MS differential for six months was illegal and
void, as the plaintiff had applied for reduction and had not consumed beyond
65.950 KW. The defendants
defendants were restrained from recovering the said amount
and also from enforcing the earlier bill of ₹₹15,342/- till adjudication of the
pending suit.
7. However, learned District Judge, Bhiwani, partly allowed the appeal,
holding that the sanctioned load, and not the actual consumption, determined
the applicable tariff. Since no formal order of load reduction was ever passed by
2 of 4
the competent authority, the sanctioned
sanctioned load remained 75.200 KW, attracting LS
tariff. Consequently, the defendants were held entitled to recover ₹10,244.20,
10,244.20,
while the finding regarding ₹15,342/- was left undisturbed.
8. Assailing the above reversal, Learned counsel for the appellant
contended
tended that all prior bills were under the MS category and that the plaintiff's
consumption had never exceeded 65.950 KW. It was argued that having applied
for load reduction, the plaintiff should not be penalised for the defendants'
inaction in regularising
regula the same.
9. Contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
Per Contra,
judgment of the First Appellate Court, submitting that tariff liability depends on
sanctioned load,
load rather than consumption or pendency of a request for
reduction.
10. This Court has considered rival submissions and perused the record.
11. It is not disputed that the plaintiff's sanctioned load was 75.200 KW
at the time of reconnection in May 1990 and that reduction to 65.950 KW was
only applied for but never sanctioned.
12. The learned First Appellate Court rightly observed that until the
competent authority formally reduced the sanctioned load, the plaintiff
continued to fall under the LS tariff. Merely applying for reduction could not
alter the category. The Court correctly held that the determinative factor for
tariff classification is the sanctioned load as per records, not the actual
consumption.
13. The reasoning is consistent with the settled principle that a
consumer's liability is governed by the sanctioned contractual terms, and any
unilateral assumption by the consumer cannot override the express conditions
of supply. Reference may be made to Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v.
Ashwani Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120, where the Supreme Court held that billing
under the sanctioned category remains valid unless a formal order for reduction
is passed.
3 of 4
14. Thus, the view taken by the First Appellate Court is based on proper
Thus,
appreciation of the evidence and sound legal
legal reasoning. No illegality, perversity,
or misapplication of law has been demonstrated in the impugned findings.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. The judgment and decree dated 19.02.1998 passed by the learned
District Judge, Bhiwani, are affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
10.11.2025 JUDGE
Jiten
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
