JUDGMENT
N. K. Sodhi, J.
1. Petitioner applied on 10-3-1992 to the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short the Board) for a new electric L.S. (large supply) connection for running an induction furnace. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- as security on the same day and his application was registered. It is common case of the parties that the connection was released on 4-7-1995 after all the formalities had been completed. The Board as per its circular CC No. 41 /95 dated 4-5-1995 decided to recover one time charge from the large supply consumers demanding contract demand higher than 60% of the connected load and to charge monthly minimum charges on the connected load basis instead of Contract Demand basis. The Assistant Executive Engineer by his memo dated 12-2-1999 called upon the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rupees 2,17,000/- on account of demand charges which according to him were payable by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid circular but were not paid at the time of the release of the connection. He was given ten days’ time to deposit the amount, failing which, the connection would be disconnected. It is against this demand that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the same on the ground that it is illegal and not payable even under the circular referred to by the Board.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Board has filed its written statement controverting the allegations made by the petitioner and it is pleaded that the audit party raised an objection to the effect that the petitioner had not deposited the demand charges at the time of the release of connection and that the sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- was less charged. It is further pleaded that on receipt of a representation from the petitioner the matter was again examined and it was found that the demand raised by the Board was valid and that the aforesaid demand charges were payable by the petitioner.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties. A copy of the circular on the basis of which the demand charges have been levied was produced before us during the course of arguments. The relevant part of Clause (A) of the circular which deals with the contract demand charges reads as under :
The above charge shall be leviable only in case of new applicants who apply/applied for release of load/demand for a new connection or for extension in load/demand w.e.f. 1-4-1995. However, in case of existing consumers who have applied for extension in load/demand prior to 1-4-1995 and connections have not been released, the above charges shall be leviable on the basis of the contract demand of the aggregated connected load or only on the Contract Demand for extended load, whichever is minimum.”
4. It is clear that the Contract Demand charges are leviable only in case of new applicants who apply/applied for release of load/demand for a new connection or for extension in load/demand with effect from 1-4-1995. However, in the case of existing consumers who applied for extension in load/demand prior to 1-4-1995 and connections had not been released the demand charges were leviable on the basis of the contract demand of the aggregated connected load or only on the Contract Demand for extended load, whichever was minimum. As observed earlier, the petitioner was a newi applicant who applied for a connection on 10-3-1992 i.e. much prior to the cut off date mentioned in the circular. He is, therefore, not covered by the circular and not liable to pay demand charges as claimed by the Board. These charges are leviable only on those new applicants who applied for the connection with effect from 1-4-1995. The other part of the circular deals with the existing consumers and since the petitioner was a new applicant that part would also not apply to him. In this view of the matter, the demand raised by the Board on the basis of the aforesaid circular is not warranted.
5. After the case had been argued and order reserved, the Board moved an application placing on record circular No. 11 of 1996 dated 6-21996 purporting to clarify the earlier circular No. 41 of 1995 dated 4-5-1995 in respect of recovery of one time contract Demand Charges. It is stated in this circular that recovery of one time contract demand charges per KVA and as per rates mentioned in circular No. 41 of 1995 are to be recovered from all new applicants who apply/applied for release of load/demand for a new connection or for extension in load/demand with effect from 1-4-1995, it is further stated that these charges were also to be recovered from all such consumers whose connections/extensions had not been released before the issue of circular No. 41 of 1995 even though they applied before 1-4-1995. It is argued on behalf of the Board that after the issuance of circular No. 11 of 1996 clarifying the earlier circular there is no doubt left that consumers like the petitioner whose connections had not been released before the issuance of circular No. 41 of 1995 have to pay one time contract Demand Charges even though they applied for the connection before 1-4-1995. We are unable, to agree with the learned counsel for the Board. It is true that the Board while purporting to clarify circular No. 41 of 1995 has stated in circular No. 11 of 1996 that the one time contract Demand Changes are also to 3e recovered from such consumers whose on sections had not been released before the issuance of circular No. 41 of 1995 even though they applied before 1-4-1995 but it is for the first time that the Board has decided on 6-2-1996 while issuing circular No. 11 of 1996 that these charges are to be recovered from this class of consumers as well. In the earlier circular (C.C. No. 41 of 1995) L.S. consumers who had applied for a new connection prior to 1-4-1995 were not required to pay the one time contract Demand Charges. Since the Board decided to recover these charges from such consumers as well by issuing C.C. No. 11 of 1996 on 6-2-1996 is only with effect from this date that such class of consumers will be required to pay the one time contract Demand Charges. The petitioner had applied for a new connection prior to 1-4-1995 but since his connection had been released before the issuance of circular No. 11 of 1996i.e. prior to 6-2-1996 he is not required to pay those charges. Circular No. 11 of 1996 is not retrospective in its operation. In other words, after the issuance of circular No. 11 of 1996 the Board will be entitled to recover those charges from new applicants who had applied prior to 1-4-1995 and whose connections had not been released till the issuance of this circular. The petitioner does not fall in this category because his connection was released on 4-7-1995 prior to the issuance of C.C. No. 11 of 1996. We are, therefore, of the view that even on the basis of the so called clarification issued by the Board, it cannot recover the one time contract Demand Charges from the petitioner. In fact it is a misnomer to call the subsequent circular a clarification when, really speaking it is a fresh levy that is being imposed for the first time on another class of consumers.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice dated 12-2-1999 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- on account of demand charges quashed. There is no order as to costs.