CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3987 of 2009 Date of decision: March 24, 2009. Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Science and Research, Mehta Road, Vallah, Amritsar ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner - Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Science and Research, Amritsar is aggrieved at the Electrical Checking Report dated 17.6.2002 (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure P-3) of the Disputes Settlement Authority as well as the order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the OMBUDSMAN Electricity – cum – Appellate Authority whereby the demand raised against the petitioner towards payment of over Rs.11,34,000/- for the unauthorized load of 755.930 KW and the levy on load surcharge has been upheld. The OMBUDSMAN's order is self-speaking. It reveals that the CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner had submitted two applications to PSEB, first being in January 2000 seeking a connected load of 396.96 KW and the second application on 17.2.2000 for connected load of 213.92 KW. The required security for the two connections was also deposited. The petitioner's case was that since the PSEB authorities did not have requisite infrastructure to sanction the demanded load, it was intimated that the load could be granted only after augmentation of 33 KV Nawan Pind sub-station to 66 KV sub station. A temporary connection for 130 KV of load was finally released by the PSEB authorities. However, even after upgradation of the Nawan Pind sub- station, the full load was not released to the petitioner. The second grievance of the petitioner is that both its applications were registered under Domestic Supply (DS category) but the PSEB sanctioned it firstly in the category of Large Supply (LS) and then to Bulk Supply (BS) and finally in the category of Non-Residential Supply (NRS). According to the petitioner, the charging of NRS category tariff was against Regulation 87.1.1 of the Sales Regulations in terms whereof the educational institutions and hospitals recognized by the Govt. are to be charged under the DS category only. The petitioner-institute has, therefore, challenged the PSEB's electrical checking report No.6 dated 17.6.2002 which alleges that the load of 885.930 KW was running against the sanctioned load of 130 KW and as such the petitioner-institute is liable to be levied load surcharge of Rs.11,34,000/- @ Rs.1500/- per KW. The petitioner's claim was contested by the PSEB before the OMBUDSMAN, inter-alia, on the plea that vide memo dated 28.6.2000 the petitioner was informed that their request for the load of 613.88 KW was being considered and they should deposit the necessary charges and submit CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 3 :- the required documents so that the case could be processed for granting feasibility clearance. The petitioner was again informed on 27.7.2000 that the feasibility clearance had been given by the competent authority and it could submit A&A Form along with its report and other documents/requisite fee. A reminder dated 30.8.2000 was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner-institute, however, never complied with those instructions. The petitioner thereafter submitted a fresh application with Form A&A seeking load of 130 KV, which was not a temporary connection, rather was released under the NRS category only. The respondents explained that since the petitioner is not a government aided institute, it was not entitled to apply under the DS category. Defending the electrical checking report, the respondents explained that there is no factual or procedural error committed while preparing the said report. The OMBUDSMAN has considered the rival contentions and has repelled the petitioner's contention that the tariff ought to have been assessed under the DS category after observing as follows:- “Regarding the petitioner's claim for tariff under DS category, the original records of the respondents prove the facts that at no stage, the petitioner was registered or entertained under the DS category. The two applications for sanction of load of 613.88 KW and later application for sanction of 130 KW load were registered under the CS category only. The feasibility clearance of load of 613.88 KW as earlier made under LS category vide Dy. Chief Engineer, Amritsar letter CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 4 :- dated 27.7.2000 but later on the request of the petitioner vide letter No.1320/E-1/2000 dated 11.8.2000 was granted in terms of Sales Regulation 88.1 under BS category. The formalities were not completed within the stipulated time. The subsequent requests for grant of 130 KW connected load was released on 3.11.2000 under CS category. Under these circumstances, plea for levy of load surcharge' @ Rs.750/- per KW under Bulk supply cannot be accepted. The provisions of 87.1.1 specify the tariff for Domestic Supply and Cover Supply to Govt./Govt. Aided educational institutions. I agree with the respondents that petitioner is neither exclusively Govt. aided institute nor is it wholly an educational institute. Therefore, the petitioner's plea has been rightly charged the load surcharge at the rate of Rs.1500/- per KW and denied a rebate of 7.5% as per Sales Regulation No.87.3.” Similarly, the petitioner's challenge to the electrical checking report dated 17.6.2002 has also been turned down after observing that the checking was done in the presence of the Estate Officer of the petitioner- institute, who is a highly educated former Senior Army Officer. The comprehensive details of load checked are available in the said report; the CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 5 :- petitioner has not refuted the technical competency or the capacity of the meter and the two transformers of 500 KVA which were sufficient to run a connected load of 885.930 KW with any technical expert's opinion. The OMBUDSMAN has accordingly upheld the decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee against which the petitioner-institute had preferred its appeal. I have heard Shri Dhaliwal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at some length and perused the impugned orders. It is urged that the application for the release of the electricity connection submitted by the petitioner in January 2000 and on 17.2.2000 were under the DS category and as per the Sales Regulations prevailing at that time, an institute recognized by the government (even if not receiving grant-in-aid) was eligible to seek electricity supply under the DS category. It is explained that those Regulations were amended in April 2000 only, whereby additional condition of receipt of grant-in-aid by such institute was also added. On this premise, Shri Dhaliwal contends that the petitioner having applied before the said amendment came into force, its applications were liable to be dealt with as per the unamended Regulations. Having given by thoughtful consideration to the contention, I do not find any merit in the same. The facts revealed by the appellate authority leave no room to doubt that pursuant to those two applications moved by the petitioner, memos dated 28.6.2000, 27.7.2000 and 30.8.2000 were sent asking it to deposit the necessary charges, firstly for the purpose of processing feasibility clearance and thereafter towards the requisite fee etc. The order further reveals that the petitioner failed to respond to these notices. It clearly suggests that the petitioner itself did not pursue its CWP No.3987 of 2009 -: 6 :- previous applications submitted prior to April 2000. The petitioner admittedly moved a fresh application in form A&A No.32487/CS seeking load of 130 KW. The said application was moved after the amendment in the Regulations and pursuant thereto only, that the connection was released on 3.11.200. It is not in dispute that as per the amended Sales Regulation No.84.1.1, the petitioner-institute is ineligible to seek electricity supply in DS category as it does not receive any grant-in-aid. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, if there is any dispute with regard to the quantum of the amount which the petitioner is liable to deposit, it shall be at liberty to represent to the authorities, who shall consider the same as per the record. Dasti. March 24, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge