M/S Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. And … vs Punjab State Electricity Board … on 1 April, 2009

CWP No. 7299 of 1993                 1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                     CWP No. 7299 of 1993

                                     Date of decision : April 01, 2009


M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and another

                                                       ...... Petitioner (s)
                   v.



Punjab State Electricity Board and others
                                                       ...... Respondent(s)

                               ***

Coram:             Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

                               ***

Present :    Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. H.S.Riar, Senior Advocate with
             Mr.D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate
             for the respondents.

                               ***

1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
     judgment ?
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
                               ***


Ajay Tewari, J.

This petition has been filed challenging the notice

(Annexure P-13) calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of

Rs. 49, 04,127/- on the ground that a load of 4904.127 KW was detected

being unauthorised load in the mill of the petitioner. As per his notice the

following was found by the inspection team:-
CWP No. 7299 of 1993 2

(1) 1106.325 KW Total running load checked by
Enforcement Staff

(2) 3187.500 KW Connected load on T.G. Set

(3) 2226.330 KW Connected standby load on T.G. Set
6520.155 KW Total
1616.028 KW (-) PSEB Sanctioned Load

4904.127 KW Excess Load

As per commercial circular No. 12 of 89 connected load is defined as

follows:-

Connected Load:

The connected load means the sum of the rated
capacities of all the energy consuming apparatus in the
consumer’s installation. This shall not include the stand
by or spare energy consuming apparatus installed
through the change over witch provided requisite prior
permission had been accorded by the competent authority
in the Board as per provisions of NOTE (iii) below :-

NOTE:-

(iii) The consumer shall be allowed the
change over switch with the permission of
competent authority, subject to the conditions that
the particular gadget/machinery supposed to be
operated through a particular motor whose change
over switch is deployed should be specified in the
test report itself and verified as such at the time of
release of load and the bigger of the two motors
shall be taken into account while computing the
connected load.”

It is not disputed that with regard to the same dispute

earlier CWP No. 370 of 1993 was filed. The same had been disposed of

with the following observations:-

“For the reasons recorded above, the order Annexure P/8
is quashed, leaving the respondent/Board to pass
appropriate order, if so advised, and the petitioner would
be at liberty to challenge the same, if required. Since the
CWP No. 7299 of 1993 3

electricity supply of the petitioner was disconnected on
passing of the order Annexure P/8, we direct the
respondent-Electricity Board to reconnect it forthwith
which would of course be subject to the final order to be
passed by the respondents as required under the circular.”

It was thereafter that the impugned notice was issued.

The dispute centers around the permissibility of adding the

load connected on the T.G. Set viz. 3187.500 KW and the standby load

i.e.2226.330 KW. As regards the second component in the above

mentioned writ petition the Division Bench had found as follows:-

“As per circular Annexure R/1, for the
purposes of charging for the excess load, the load
of the standby machinery was to be excluded.
However, in the order Annexure P/8 the load of the
standby apparatus to the extent of 2226.330 KW
was included. This is also in violation o the
circular mentioned above and the demand raised
through order Annexure P/8 is, thus, not in
accordance with the circular aforesaid and, cannot
be sustained in law.”

This finding regarding the standby load is thus binding on this

court and consequently it is held that the addition of 2226.330 KW was not

permissible. However, with regard to the first component viz. Connected

load on T.G. Set, this Court on 21.8.2008 had recorded as follows:-

“Arguments in part heard.

The dispute in this petition primarily relates to the
question, whether with the aid of a device called a bus
coupler, inter transferability of load could be effected
between the captive generation apparatus of the
petitioner and the energy supplied by the respondent-

CWP No. 7299 of 1993 4

board. This is a disputed question of fact.

At this stage learned counsel for the
petitioner has very fairly stated that he would accept the
decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the
respondent-board on this aspect of the matter. Let the
Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent-board,
after hearing both the parties, give an opinion on the
question whether the bus coupler installed by the
petitioner would permit inter-transferability of the load
between the Turbo Generator Set of the petitioner and
the PSEB. Let representatives of both the parties appear
before the Dispute Settlement Committee in this regard
on 28.8.2008.

The matter is adjourned for two weeks i.e.
8.9.2008.

Copy of this order be given to both the learned
counsel under the signatures of the Reader of this Court.”

The said committee submitted its report wherein it has been

found that with the aid of the bus coupler the inter-transferability of load

was possible. In view of the statement dated 21.8.2008 it is, therefore, held

that the addition on account of the load connected on the T.G. Set cannot be

faulted with and is upheld.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

April 01 , 2009. ( AJAY TEWARI )
sunita JUDGE