The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of a penalty for peak load violation. It held that the existence of two separate connections with individual exemptions did not allow the petitioner to utilise load on one connection if supply to the other was withheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.5778 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5778 of 2012
Date of decision: 28.03.2012
M/s Patiala Castings Pvt. Limited
---Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.5778 of 2012
2
set up by the petitioner through which power was being given to both the electric connections. The petitioner-company was permitted 100 KW during peak load hours while the adjoining Steel Rolling Mill was allowed to run a load of 50 KW during peak hours. In addition to 150 KW, the petitioner had got exemption for another 50 KW by paying peak load exemption charges at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month. Thus, the two units were jointly permitted to run 200 KW during peak load hours. The petitioner was shocked when a penalty of Rs.3,23,675/- was imposed by the respondent-Corporation on account of alleged peak load and weekly off-day violations recorded in the DDL dated 15.1.2008 and 20.3.2008. Aggrieved by the demand, the petitioner approached the Zonal Disputes Settlement Committee but the demand was confirmed vide order dated 20.12.2010, Annexure P.5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum whereby the demand was upheld vide order dated 21.7.2011, Annexure P.6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Ombudsman, Electricity Punjab which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011, Annexure P.1. Hence this petition.
CWP No.5778 of 2012
3
to utilise 100 KW in each connection. However, one connection was not under use and therefore, the excess load was utilised in the other connected connection. In such circumstances, it was urged that it could not be said that there was violation of peak hour norms.
“It is observed that there were two separate connections, one for induction furnace and other for Rolling Mill having separate sanctioned load and separate contract demand which were being catered at 66 KV Cluster Substation. In my view, even if single composite electricity bill was being issued by the respondents in one account, the identity of two connections did not get merged in one account. In case of disconnection of supply of Rolling Mill, the exemption allowed of 100 KW during PLHR could not continue for the benefit of the other cluster connection of induction furnace.”
petition and the same is dismissed.
March 28, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether utilising excess load on one connection due to the other connection being under use amounts to a violation of peak load norms.
Whether the petitioner is justified in claiming no violation since one connection was not under use.
M/s Patiala Castings Pvt. Limited
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
