Allowed

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Jaid Cold Storage

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011RSA/4381/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an appeal filed by the Electricity Board to club two electric connections (MS22 and MS23) in the same premises for Large Supply Tariff, relying on a joint inspection report confirming no physical separation. Appeals by the firms were dismissed, but officers alleged to have connived in releasing separate connections were directed to be identified for pun

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeals filed by the Electricity Board allowed and judgments below set aside; appeals by the firms dismissed with no order as to costs. Board directed to identify conniving officers.

Pseb & Ors. Vs M/S Jaid Cold Storage — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

432

fr 0 C0 I 0 I Z 2 f I CO Z ri0 W2 Z

¶5

Reqular Second ApPeal Nos 4380 of²⁰⁰⁵ Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 2Q5 Reqular Second^AmoealNoe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second ApPeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶7

Reclular Second Appeal Non 4380 of 2005

¶8

Punjab State Electricity Board and others aee Appellants VERSUS Mlsa Hemkunt Coid Storage Respondent Reqular Second Aploeal Noa 4381 of 2005 Punjab State Electricity Board and others aee Appellants VERSUS Mlse Jaid Cold Storage Respondent

¶9

Reqular Second Appeal No 1799 of 2008

¶10

MlseJaid CoId Storage VERSUS

¶11

eee Appellant

¶12

unjab State Electricity Board and another Respondents

¶13

Reoular SecondAoDeal Noe1800of 2008

¶14

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

. Rashmi 2012.07.19 16: 21 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

46 41

433

a C 0 U I 40 I Z 2 0 I t3 Z QO 7 Z Il

¶22

¶23

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second ApDeal^{Noe 4381} of 20050 Reqular^Second Aooeal Non 1799 of 2008 and ReciularSecond Apoeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶24

Mlse^Hemkunt Cold Storage Appellant

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Punjab State Electricity^Board and another Respondents

¶27

CORAM HONBLE MROUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

¶28

1e Whether Reporters^of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment⁷ 2a To^bereferredto the Reporters or not7 3 Whether the judgmentshouid be reported in the Digest⁷

¶29

Presentl Mr Sukhbir Singh Advocate for the PunjabState ElectrlcityBoard a ppellant Itl RegularSecond Appeals NosA380 and 4381 of 2005 and respondentⁱⁿ Regular^Second Appeal^Nos1799 and 1780 of 2008

¶30

Mr SK Singla^Advocate for MlsJaid^Cold Storage appellantⁱⁿ Regular^Second Appeal^No1799 of 2008 and respondentⁱⁿ Regular^Second AppealNo4381 of^{2005 and} for Mls Hernkunt ColdStorageappellantin Regular^Second Appeal^No1800 of 2008 and respondentin Regular^Second Appeal^NoA380 of 2005

¶31

MOHINDER PALz 1n

¶32

This judgment will dispose of the aforestated four

¶33

appeals as the questioninvolved therein is common ie whether

¶34

Eiectric Connection No MS and Electric Connectlon NoS

¶35

are to be treated as clubbedor not

¶36

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

. Rashmi 2012.07.19 16: 21 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶38

434

¶39

¶40

1 0 0 I C5 I Z C r Z 4t C 7 Z Clm

¶41

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second ADoeal No 4381 of 2005 ReqularSecond^AppealNoa 1799 of 2008^and Reqular Second Aooeal Noe 1800 of²⁰⁰⁸

¶42

Punjab^{StateElectrlcityBoard} for short the Boardo which has filed RegularSecond AppealsNos4380 and 4381 of 2005 has claimed that both these electric connections have to be treated as clubbed connections whereas in RegularSecond Appeals Nos 1799 and 1800 of 2008 filed by Mls Jald Cold Storage and Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage respectively the claim made is that these two electric connections are separate^Units

¶43

Regular^Second Appeal NoA380 of 2005 has been filed by^the Board against the judgment and decree passedby^the Iower appellateCourt whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissingthe suit filed by MlsHemkunt Cold Storage plaintiff^thereii was set aside and the suit filed by Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage concerningthe electricity charges^irl respectof Electric Connection NoMS22 was decreede

¶44

Regular^Second Appeal NoA381 of 2005 has been fiied by^the Board against the judgment and decree passedby^the Iower appellate^Court whereby^the judgment^anddecree passed by the trial Court dismissing^the suit Oied by Mlsaid Cold Storage Plalntiff^thereln was set aside and the sult filed by Mllaid Cold Storage concerning the electricity chargesⁱⁿ respect of Eiectric Connection NoS23 was decreed

¶45

Regular Second Appeal No1799 of 2008 has been filed by Mls Jaid Cold Storage against the judgrnents^and decrees passedby^{boththeCourts} below where the suit filed by Mls a id

¶46

. Rashmi2012.07.19Cold Storage concerning the electrlcity charges In respect JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 of 16: 21 I attest to the accuracy and Scanned TrueCopy Of Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

435

m4e

Ct 0 C0 C5 I Z 2 C

Z 111 7 Z tl

Reqular Second^APJoealNoe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 Of 2005 Reqular^Second Aopeal Nom 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal^Noa1800 of 2008

¶54

¶55

ElectricConnectlon NoMS23 was dismissed

¶56

RegularSecond Appeal No1800 of 2008 has been fiied by^{MlsHemkuntColdStorageagainstthejudgmentsanddecrees} passed^byboththe Courts below where the suit filed by MlsHemkunt^Cold Storage^concernlng the electrlclty charges^lrl respectof^{ElectricConnection} NoMS22 was dismissed

¶57

I^haveheardMr Sukhbir Singh Advocate appearingfor the Punjab^State Electrlcity^Board appellant^In Regular^Second AppealsNosA380^and4381 of 2005 and respondentin Regular SecondAppealNos1799and 1780 of 2008 and Mr SK Singla Advocate appearing^for Mls Jaid Cold Storage appellant Iil RegularSecond AppealNo 1799 of 2008 and respondentin Regular SecondAppeaiNoA381 of 2005 and for Mls Hernkunt Cold Storageappellantⁱⁿ Regular^Second AppealNo1800 of 2008 and Regular^Second AppealNoA380 of 2005 and have gone through^therecords of^the case At

¶58

the outset it may be pointed out that the firms usually^obtain more than one electric connection in the same premises^toavoid higher^tariff In order to make the provision of lubbing the new connection in the same premises the Board had issued Commercial Clrcular No78195 vide Memorandum Noe918601926101SMI268^dated 150901995 which for facilityof reference is reproduced^as belowl

¶59

Subject Runnlnge^of more than JOYTI RANI one 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

. Rashmi 2012.07.19 16: 21 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

436

1 0 0 Ca I C5 I Z 5t 0 I

¶65

Z CO e7 Z Cla

¶66

¶67

Reqular Second APpeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reciular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noa 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Aooeal Noe 1800 of²⁰⁰⁸

¶68

connection in the same premises Si268

¶69

It has been observed and experienced that existing instructions contained in SMI268 are not being meticulously^followed and new^connecons in the same premises^are beinggiven Such vioiations of the instructions are being pointedout repeatedlyby^{AccountsAudit} as well^as Technicai Audit Avoldance of higher voltage^Ievel supply has been pointed out by the audit as a resuit of giving more than one connectlon ln the same premlses Instances have also been noticed where more than^one connection has been given^Itl the^same premisesto^avoid highertariff Also instructions Issued Vide CC No32190 dated 12690 for avolding circumvention of the instructions have not been very usefui Iil curblng the tendency for a new connection in a premises carved out of the existing one or by purchasing^an adjoining Iand In order to make the provlslon of clubbing^and new connection in the same premiseserrormproofit has been decided as

¶70

underl

¶71

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶72

. Rashmi 2012.07.19 16: 21 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

437

1 C 0 0 I C5 I Z

I C3 Z Cll 7Z Il

Reqular Second Aopeal Noe 4380 of 2005 ReclularSecond Appeal Noe 4381 of 2005 1 Reqular^Second Appeal Noa 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second APoeal Noe 1800 of 20080

¶78

iI Where a ny person whether or not a member of the family partner director etc applies for a new connection in the same premises^thisshouldbe allowed only^if al there isphysical separation and b also where the premises Ill question are Iegally^transferred sold or Ieased to be the^new unit and appropriate entry^exists in the municipalrecord regarding such transfer This implles that there shouId be a registered deed for Iease or sale and formal agreement of family partitionl^Iease etc should not be accepted

¶79

The firms in question ie Mls Jaid Cold Storage^and Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage disputed the electrlcity bllls sent by the Board^on the basis of LargeSupplyTariff after clubbingIoad of EIectric Connection No MS23 Instailed Ill the name of MlsJald Cold Storage and Electrlc Connection NoMSe22 Installedinthe name of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storagealleging that both these firms have no connection with each other The Board had earlier sent notices

¶80

to. Rashmi2012.07.19both these firms to get Electric Connection NoMS22 and Electric JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 16: 21 I attest to the accuracy and Scanned TrueCopy Of Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

438

tJ C

l 0 0 I 0 I Z

I C Z oo 7Z CJm

Reqular Second Appeal Non 4380 of 20050 Reqular Second Aooeal No381 of 2005 ReclularSecond APPeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular^Second Aopeal Noe 1800 of 20080

¶88

ConnectionNoSe23 clubbed but these Orms did not get the connectionsclubbed despitethe clear instructiOns of the Board It may^be mentioned here that joint inspection^of Electric ConnectionNoS22 and Eiectric Connection NoS23 was done by^{theDirectorEnforcement} Punjab^{StateElectricityBoard} Bathinda and SuperintendingEngineer Operation Circle Faridkot on 281999 and the reportsubmitted by them reads as under

¶89

ll Subjectm^Joint inspectlonAlc NoeMS 22 8 MS23 S LS3 by S ElOp Circle Faridkot and DirectorlEnfaBathinda on dated 2811999

¶90

There^was a joint site inspection of subject^cited premises^under Patto Hira Singh subdlvn No separation^was found existing at site Hence the two connections be treated as clubbed and chargedon LS tariff accordingly^{Thesitesketchis} preparedat^site Il as per^actuals

¶91

If Electric Connection NoSe22 and Electric Connection NoMSe23 are treated as having^{beeninstalled} Itl separate^un Medium Supply^Tariff IS chargeabie and if these electric connections are treated as clubbed^ones LargeSupply^Tariff IS

¶92

chargeable. Rashmi2012.07.19 The report submltted by the Director Enforcement JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 16: 21 I attest to the accuracy and Scanned TrueCopy Of Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

9 2

439

v08

t 1

1 0 Cs I 45 Z 2 C I

m 7 Z

Reqular Second Aopeal Non 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeai Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Apeai Noa 1800 of 2008

¶103

Punjab^State Electricity^Board Bathlnda and Superintending Engineer Operation Circle Faridkot after having a joint inspection^on 281999 of Electric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection NoMSe23 reproduced^above appears to be a falr report There^was no rnalice on the part of hlghly placed officers of the Board towards Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage and MlsOaid^Cold Storage^{whichcouldhave} prompted^them to give^a false report against them This report of the higher^officers of the Board is an authentic one and an impeccabie piece of evidence belyingthe claim of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storageand Mls Jaid CoId StorageeThis report^submitted by the Director Enforcement Punjab^State Electricity Board Bathinda and SuperintendingEngineer Operation^Circle Faridkot after having a joint inspection on 28 l 1999 of EIectric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection NoMSw23 in fact is the clinching^factore However one cannot Iose sight of the fact that before releasing Electric Connection NoMS22 and Electric Connection NoMS23 some officials 1 officers of the Board must have Inspected the premises of MlsHemkunt Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Cold Storage and must have helped the partnersof these firms to get the necessary formalities required for the release of electric connections completed by conniving with them partners of these firms The Board is directed to identify those officers of the Board who had connived wlth the active partners of

¶104

MlsHemkunt. Rashmi2012.07.19^Cold Storage and MlsOaid^CoIdStorage to initiate JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 16: 21Scanned TrueCopy Of Original I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

¶105

440

¶106

¶107

1 0 0 I C5 I Z 12 C I C3 Z 00 7Z a

¶108

¶109

¶110

ReclularSecond Appeal^{Noe 4380} of 2005 ReclularSecond Apoeal Noe⁴³⁸¹ of 2005 Reqular Second ApPeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reaular Second Appeal^Noe1800 of 2008

¶111

proceedings agalnst them and to punishthem in accordance with the relevant provislons^of the service Iaws applicable^to the empioyeesof the Board

¶112

For the aforesaid reasons Regular^Second Appeal NoA380 of 2005 and Regular^Second Appeal^No 4381 of 2005 filed by^the Board are allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Iower appeliateCourt are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored Regular^Second Appeal Noe1799 of 2008 Oled by MlsJaln Coid Storage and Regular Second Appeal No 1800 of^2008filed by Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage^are hereby^dismissed being^without any merit Decree sheets be prepared However there shall be no order as to costs The Registry^IS directed to place^a copy of this judgment in Regular^Second Appeal^Noo4381 of²⁰⁰⁵ Regular^Second Appeal No¹⁷⁹⁹ of 2008 and RegularSecond Appeai No 1800 of²⁰⁰⁸ eache

¶113

l 1
PALI
February I l 1 2011 JUDGE
ak
1
v
e
1
JOYTI RANI
. Rashmi2012.07.19 2016.03.28 16:01
16: 21
l Scanned True
Copy Of Original
Slc ry PHHC,Chandigarh
l

¶114

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶115

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Jaid Cold Storage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Jaid Cold Storage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Rohit Kumar

Nanak Chand & Another Vs Narinder Kumar & Another

(O&M) Surinder Singh Vs Vasakha Singh

Pal Singh Vs Ram Kumar

Pseb & Ors. Vs M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage

M/S Jaid Cold Storage Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.