CWP No.5222 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5222 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.12.2011 Samrat Forgings Limited, having its Registered Office at 245, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh and Works at Village & Post Office Ghollumajra, District Mohali, through its Managing Director, Shri J.C. Chowdhary. ... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Daryal, Advocate, 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. The criteria adopted for treating an industry that has billet heaters as Power Intensive Unit (PIU) is said to have been examined by the Punjab State Electricity Board and after various representations have been received from the Ludhiana Hand Tools Association and the Apex Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Chief Engineer, Commercial has informed the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, in a bid to redress the grievances, it has been decided that large supply consumers having billet heater load upto 25% of CWP No.5222 of 2010 (O&M) [2] sanctioned load or 500 KW whichever was higher, could be considered as General Category consumers. Admittedly, the petitioner obtains a load less than 500 KW. On the showing of the Electricity Board itself, the petitioner cannot be now categorized as PIU and shall remain as a General Category Industrial Unit. The impugned notice to the petitioner is under the circumstances quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 2. This decision will only conclude the issue on the existing state of affairs with the decision taken by the Electricity Board in the manner of redressal of the grievance of the affected industries. If there is any change in policy or any other legally enforceable directive, the exercise of such a power shall not be fettered by this order. The parties will have independent cause of action if a fresh change of categorization is done in future. 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that a bank guarantee has been issued and that it should be directed to be discharged. In the decision that have taken allowing the writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to secure appropriate abrogation of the bank guarantee. DECEMBER 21, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE