Dismissed

Paul Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Pb. State Power Supply Corp. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2011CWP/4039/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of final electricity assessment orders. The petitioner supplied unauthorized electricity to an adjoining unconnected industrial unit. The court held this amounted to unauthorized use, and since procedural requirements were met, no interference in writ jurisdiction was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine as there was no ground to interfere with the assessment orders.

Paul Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pb. State Power Supply Corp. & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.4039 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 19, 2011.

¶3

M/s Paul Steels Private Limited

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioner-company seeks quashing of the final assessment orders dated 19.12.2006 and 13.8.2007 (Annexures P-4 and P- 9) as well as the order dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-11) whereby its appeal against one of the assessment order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P9) has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A demand of more than Rs.4.41 lacs has been raised against the petitioner-company vide these orders for indulging in unauthorized use of the electricity.

¶16

2] The petitioner-company runs an industrial unit for manufacturing of steel ingot and is also running its induction furnace for which it has obtained an electricity connection No.FP 52/269 with a sanctioned load of 2149.930 KV and Contract Demand sanctioned load of

¶17

C.W.P.No .4039 of 2011 2

¶18

2443.00 KVA and is getting the electricity supply at HT voltage. There is another industrial unit known as M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited being set up at the plot adjoining to the petitioner-company’s industry. It appears that both the companies have common management. M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited applied for an industrial electricity connection on 10.12.2006 and completed certain formalities also but admittedly the electricity connection is yet to be released in its favour.

¶19

3] On a surprise check/inspection conducted by the Additional Superintending Engineer in the factory premises of the petitioner-company on 15.11.2006, it was found that the petitioner was supplying unauthorized electricity to the adjoining industry of M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited. The petitioner was accordingly served with a provisional assessment order dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-2), the relevant contents whereof read as under:-

¶20

“……During the above inspection, the following acts of unauthorized use of electricity were noticed:-

¶21

i) Construction of new shed of M/s Sharu Special Steel was going on and the consumer obtained no temporary connection;

¶22

On account of above said unauthorized use of electricity/malpractice’s the following charges amounting to Rs.4,41,170/- are assessed as payable by you under Section 126 of the EA Act, 2003. The details of amount assessed are as under:-

¶23

Load x 25 days x 12 hr.x 0.60 factor x 3.5 months

¶24

102.226 x 25 x 12 x 0.60 x 305 = 64,428 units.

¶25

C.W.P.No .4039 of 2011 3

¶26

Difference of tariff i.e. (temporary rate x 1.5) L.S. rate (6.63 x 105) -3.72 = 6.225 Chargeable amount “SOP”=64,428x6.226 = Rs.4,01,064 “ED” @ 10% = Rs. 40,106 Total amount chargeable = Rs.4,41,170”

¶27

4] The petitioner-company submitted its objections against the

¶28

provisional assessment order which were duly considered and rejected by the Competent Authority resulting into issuance of two final impugned assessment orders. While the petitioner-company did not challenge the final assessment order dated 19.12.2006, it did file a departmental appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the final assessment order dated 13.8.2007 which has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division-cum-Appellate Authority, Patiala, by passing a well reasoned order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P-11).

¶29

5] Still aggrieved, the petitioner-company has approached this Court.

¶30

6] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the provisional and final assessment orders as well as the appellate order, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. I say so for the reasons that the supply of unauthorized electricity by the petitioner-company to M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited is not in dispute though the petitioner has been laying emphasize that the electricity was not 'sold' to the said industry. It is an admitted fact that no electricity connection, temporary or otherwise, was sanctioned or released in favour of M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private

¶31

C.W.P.No .4039 of 2011 4

¶32

Limited. It further appears that during the surprise check/inspection, it was detected that the petitioner-company was supplying electricity to M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited for running of the following machines/equipments:-

¶33

“Lath motor = 2+2+7.5 11.5 HP Grander 2 HP 2 Pump Motor 7.5+3 HP 10.5 Light load Motors 7.7+7.5 15 Crane Motors 7.5+7.5+2 17 Lamps 15 =1.150 Blowers 10+5+5 20 Fans 3x100 =0.300 Fire motor 1 HP Plug 5AMP3/5=0.050 Boiler 15x2+10 40 Pump ½ HP =2.000 Water motor 2+2 4 Total = 3.500 KW Welding set 2x4.25KW 8.5 KW Total = 181 HP 8.5 KW

¶34

90.266+8.5KW+3.5KW=102.255……”

¶35

7] That being so, even if it is assumed that it is not a case of unauthorized sale of the electricity by the petitioner-company to M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited, still it tantamounts to indulging in the unauthorized use of the electricity by the petitioner-company.

¶36

8] Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contemplates that if on inspection of any place or premises it is found that the electricity consumer is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, the Assessing Officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of its judgment, the electricity charges payable by such person and a provisional assessment order shall be served on the person in occupation of the premises. Section 126 (3) of the

¶37

C.W.P.No .4039 of 2011 5

¶38

Electricity Act gives an opportunity to the aggrieved person to submit his objections before the Assessing Officer against the provisional assessment and the final order of assessment is to be passed only after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such aggrieved person.

¶39

9] The competent authority in the case in hand firstly issued a provisional assessment order to the petitioner containing the reasons for the liability sought to be fastened upon it. The petitioner’s objections against the provisional assessment order were duly considered and its representative was also given personal hearing by the Chief Engineer (Operation) Central Zone on 19.12.2006 before passing of the final assessment order(s)

¶40

10] The Appellate Authority has elaborately dealt with all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-company highlighting that excess load was found during the surprise check of the petitioner's premises on 15.11.2006. The Appellate Authority further took notice of the fact that the petitioner-company did not even submit its objections against one of the provisional assessment order though it represented against the said order before the Appellate Authority. It was also revealed that the petitioner had sold a part of its big chunk of land to M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited and that the later was a distinct 'legal entity' at the time when the surprise check was conducted. The Appellate Authority also took notice of the fact that the petitioner-company had sublet the electricity connection to M/s Sharu Special Alloys Private Limited in a totally unauthorized and illegal manner.

¶41

C.W.P.No .4039 of 2011 6

¶42

11] In my considered view, the above stated concurrent findings of fact, based upon the correct appreciation of the material on record, do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶43

12] Dasti.

¶44

April 19, 2011 Mohinder

¶45

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Paul Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Pb. State Power Supply Corp. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Pb. State Power Supply Corp. & Ors.

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

Hari Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and Anr.

Babu Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Laddi Bus Service Regd. and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Greater Mohali Area Dev. Authority Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bohar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tapan K. Mukherjee Vs Union of India and Ors.