IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6680 of 2008. Date of Decision: 10th February, 2009. Haryana Chamber of Commerce and Industries & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. D.K.Singhal, Advocate Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6680, 15040, 17172, 17418, 19052, 19060, 19334, 19516, 19811, 19861, 20113, 20182, 20216, 20353, 20691, 21279 of 2008 and 337 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 6680 of 2008. The petitioners, who are running Industrial Units in District Panchkula, seek quashing of the Sale Circulars No. 4/2007 dated 11.2.2001, U-7 of 2008 dated 9.2.2008 and U-36/2007 dated 30.4.2007 issued by the respondent Corporation pertaining to the Peak Load Exemption charges. The petitioners also seek quashing of the letter dated 5.3.2008 whereby the impugned Circular dated 30.4.2007 has been withdrawn w.e.f. 9.2.2008 instead of the date of its issuance, i.e., 30.4.2007. They also seek quashing of the demands raised by the respondents pursuant to the impugned circulars. Suffice it to mention here that in terms of the impugned circulars, the petitioner – Industrial Units were required to pay additional electricity charges during the peak-load restriction period. It appears that the additional charges were determined by the respondent Corporation as per the tariff order passed by the Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It may be noticed that the impugned circular dated 30.4.2007 [Annexure P-1] specifically recites as follows:- “The Schedule of peak load restrictions should be followed meticulous and peak load exemption charges as provided against sub-head [ix] of item 4 of S.C.No.4/2001 dated 11.1.2001, further reiterated vide S.C.No.U- 59/2006 dated 4.9.2006 should be enforced on consumers who opt for the same. It should be ensured by the SE/M&P that software for recording energy during peak loan hours is functioning in the energy meter of all HT industrial consumers including consumers having independent industrial feeder”. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the aforesaid circular has been withdrawn with immediate effect vide Memo dated 9.2.2008 [Annexure P-8]. In this view of the matter, the controversy is confined to the recovery of Peak-load Exemption Charges for the period w.e.f. 1.5.2007 till 9.2.2008 only. In some of the cases, the circular whereby the Peak-load Exemption Charges were levied, has been withdrawn conditionally, leaving an expression that the said Circular has been withdrawn from the date of its issue. The fact remains that the Peak-load Exemption Charges could be levied in terms of the Circular dated 30.4.2007 and/or any other similar Circular only in respect of those consumers who had “opted for the same”. Most of the petitioners have come up with the plea that they were never given any such option nor they ever opted for the Peak-load Exemption. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the factual controversies involved in this case, as well as the specific stand taken by most of the petitioners, in my considered view, the respondents are obligated to determine in each case as to whether or not the Peak-load Exemption Charges are recoverable from them. While doing so, the respondents shall have to first find out as to whether the petitioner[s] opted for the Peak-load Exemption on payment of the prescribed charges. Wherever there was an express or implied option exercised by a consumer, that the charges could be levied. In other words, the impugned charges can not be levied merely on the assumption that the petitioners must have opted for the Scheme during Peak-load restrictions. 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 a 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. As regards the shifting of meters, no case to interfere with by this Court is made out. Disposed of. No costs. February 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE