CWP No. 6898 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6898 of 2010 Date of decision October 19, 2011 M/s Shree Ram Wood Industries and others ....... Petitioners Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. N. L. Sammi , Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Petitioner is ready. At the previous hearing on 20.5.2011 yet another Judge of this Court had directed the respondent to file a statement subject to payment of costs assessed at `5,000/-. The Registry has reported that costs had not been paid and at the previous date of hearing on 7.9.2011, I had recorded the fact that costs awarded had not been deposited and directed the matter to be posted for arguments. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. I hasten to therefore, dispose of the case on the basis of records and on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. CWP No. 6898 of 2010 2 2. The writ petition is for refund of Peak Load Exemption Charges deposited by the petitioners vide Annexures P-1 to P-5. The petitioner seeks for refund basing his claim on the directions issued by this Court in Haryana Chamber of Commerce and Industries and others Vs. UHBVNL and others in CWP No. 6680 of 2008 dated 10.2.2009. The observations of this Court are as follows:- “Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue fresh show Cause Notices to each of the petitioners and thereafter determine as to whether or not they had opted for the supply of electricity on higher charges during the Peak Load Restrictions. The needful shall be done within a period of four months of the receipt of certified copy of this order and in accordance with law. Till then, no recovery shall be affected from the petitioners. In case any excess amount has been paid or recovered from the petitioners, the same shall be refunded or adjusted against the future bills.” 3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount paid is bound to be refunded. However, I find that the Electricity Board was required to issue show cause notice to each of the consumers and thereafter determine whether or not any consumer had opted for supply of electricity on higher charges during the peak load restrictions. I will not make an adjudication whether the petitioner had availed of such an option or not. I will restrict the relief as sought for by the petitioner by directing the refund if the petition is found on verification of records as not having opted from peak load charges, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. This is in keeping with the directions made in the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 6680 of 2008 referred to above. If the petitioner is entitled to refund, the amount paid shall be returned with interest at 6% per annum from the date when the amounts CWP No. 6898 of 2010 3 were collected through Annexures P-1 to P-5 till the date of payment. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 19, 2011 archana