Remanded

Hpseb Ltd. v. Ms a.B.Tools

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Nov 2017CWP/4574/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the statutory Forum erred in directing the petitioner to share liability for an under-charging mistake. The Court found the order arbitrary as it failed to consider the time-bar defense under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the Forum for a fresh decision confining itself within the four corners of the statute.

Hpseb Ltd. Vs Ms a.B.Tools — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No.4574 of 2012.

¶3

Judgment reserved on : 16.11.2017. Date of decision: 24^th November, 2017.

¶4

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others .….Petitioners.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s A.B.Tools Pvt. Ltd. and another …..Respondents.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr.Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr.Varun Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶10

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶11

By medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers of HPSEB Ltd., SDA Complex, Block No.8, Kasumpti, Shimla-9 (for short the ‘Forum’).

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 applied for the electricity connection to run its unit and revised its test report for connected load as on 20.04.99 against the account No.LS-19. As per test report, the total connected load was 496.90 KW i/c light load of 42.570 KW. Erroneously, in electricity bills with effect from 08/2002 the light load was treated as 82 KVA instead of their actual light load as per verified

¶13

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶14

¶15

test report was 47.5 KVA (42.570 KW) and accordingly bills were issued on the basis of light load of 82 KVA.

¶16

On 07.07.2009, a notice was issued to respondent No.1 to the effect that light load as per test report was 47.5 KVA, whereas, the bills were being issued by taking light load as 82 KVA for the period with effect from August, 2002 to June, 2005, resulting in under charging of peak load violation and asking respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.3,37,200/within 15 days. This mistake was pointed out by the Audit Department. Respondent No.1 represented against the said letter questioning the demand so raised and also submitted that in terms of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the said demand is barred in law. On the basis of the aforesaid representation, the accounts of respondent No.1 were overhauled and revised and accordingly reduced demand of Rs.2,50,660/- was sent to respondent No.1 on 30.09.2009.

¶17

The petitioners contested the complaint by filing reply wherein it sought to justify the demand so raised by it.

¶18

The Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by observing that both respondent No.1 as well as petitioners were fully responsible and negligent and accordingly directed respondent No.1 to deposit 50% of the amount (Rs.1,25,330/-) with the petitioners while the remaining balance amount of Rs.1,25,330/- was directed to be borne by the petitioners.

¶19

The petitioners have questioned the order passed by the Forum on various grounds taken in the memo of petition.

¶20

Respondent No.1 has filed reply wherein it has sought to justify the order passed by the Forum and has in particular made reference to the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, to

¶21

¶22

contend that the recovery/demand as sought by the petitioners was highly time barred.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

¶24

At the outset, it may be observed that respondent No.1 has not challenged the order passed by the Forum whereby 50% of the disputed amount has been directed to be borne by it. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is with respect to the 50% of the disputed amount that has been fastened upon the petitioners.

¶25

However, the moot question is whether such course was open to the Forum. To my mind, such a course was not at all open to the Forum as admittedly the Forum is a statutory authority created under the statute and is bound by the procedure laid down in the statute and must act within the four corners thereof. The Forum was required to adjudicate the petition on merit by either allowing such petition in part or toto or dismissing the same. The impugned order could have only been passed in case the Forum had on the basis of material placed before it come to a definitive conclusion that the claim raised by the petitioners was either totally time barred or part thereof was time barred. After all, a master is not responsible for the negligence or other wrongful acts of his servant simply because it is committed at the time when the servant is engaged by the master. Thus, it can well be concluded that the course as adopted by the Forum was neither warranted nor can it be countenanced, more particularly, when respondent No.1 had not only invoked the principles of estoppel, but had also claimed the demand to be time barred by invoking the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provisions unfortunately had not at all been noticed by the Forum.

¶26

¶27

Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no other option, but to remit the matter back to the Forum for decision afresh. It is expected that the Forum shall decide the lis strictly in accordance with law and confining itself within the four corners of the statute under which it has been created and thereafter render a decision as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31^st March, 2018 . The parties through their counsel(s) are directed to appear before the Forum on 01.12.2017.

¶28

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 24^th November, 2017. Judge. (krt )

Hpseb Ltd. v. Ms a.B.Tools

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hpseb Ltd. v. Ms a.B.Tools

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Lal Vs State of Hp

Girja Nand Vs Chet Ram

Jagdish Chand Vs Poornima Alias Poonam

Madhavi Ramesh Dudani Vs Ramesh Kimat Rai Dudani

state of H.P. Vs Kamal Thakur

Bhupinder Singh @ Rahul Vs State of Hp