R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:24.08.2011 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through Sr.Executive Engineer ......Appellant Versus Mahavir Bio-Coal Industries .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record is that, M/s Mahavir Bio-Coal Industries-respondent- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff-Firm”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent/mandatory injunction, restraining the Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Engineer-appellant- defendant(for short “the defendant-Board”), from recovering a sum of `21,419/- in pursuance of the impugned memo/bills issued by it. 2. The case set-up by the plaintiff-Firm, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, it is running a Bio-Coal Industry and electric connection No.MS-29 of 83.10 KW is installed in its premises. The plaintiff-Firm was stated to have installed its own transformer and, as such, it is entitled to rebate of 17½% on each bill, as per policy/commercial circular No.5 of 1996 dated 18.01.1996(Exhibit P6) of the defendant-Board. It was claimed that the defendant-Board granted the benefit of R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 2 the indicated rebate till July 2000. Thereafter, it was arbitrarily stopped, without any reason and started charging 3% extra units from the plaintiff-Firm on every bill, after extending the benefit of rebate of 7.1% till July, 2000. The supplementary demand raised by the defendant-Board was stated to be illegal and arbitrary. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the plaintiff-Firm claimed that since, it has installed its own transformer in the premises, so, it is entitled to the rebate of 17½% on each bill, as per policy of the defendant-Board dated 18.01.1996(Exhibit P6). But the defendant-Board illegally stopped the concession of rebate after July, 2000. The subsequent demand raised by the defendant-Board by way of supplementary bills, was termed as illegal, nonest, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff-Firm filed the suit for permanent/mandatory injunction against the defendant-Board, in the manner described hereinabove. 4. The defendant-Board contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff-Firm. According to the defendant-Board that, since 24 hours electricity supply was provided to the plaintiff-Firm, so, it was not entitled to the indicated rebate. The release of benefit of rebate till July, 2000 to it, was admitted. However, it was claimed that, when the mistake came to the notice during the course of audit, then the supplementary demand was raised and the plaintiff-Firm was directed to make the payment of remaining amount. 5. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff-Firm filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 6. The parties to the lis in order to substantiate their respective pleas, R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 3 brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Firm, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009, the operative part of which is, as under:- “As a result of my finding returned on all the issues above the suit of the plaintiff is, partly decreed to the effect that the defendants are permanently restrained from recovering a sum of Rs.21,419/- as demanded vide memo No.829 dated 26.4.04 and bill supplementary No.19770 payable by 3.5.04 against account No.MS-29 in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants are also restrained from disconnecting the electric connection No.MS-29 in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to provide/grant rebate w.e.f. August 2000 onwards. However, the suit of the plaintiff is partly dismissed for adjusting amount excess charge on the basis of minimum charges by the defendants for the period from September, 2002 to January, 2003, with cost.” 8. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the defendant-Board filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010. 9. The appellant-defendant Board still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 11. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiff- Firm is not entitled to rebate, as per Regulations 45.3.1 and 45.3.2(Exhibit D1), so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing its suit, sans merit. 12. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff-Firm claimed that it is entitled to the benefit of rebate in pursuance of the Regulation(Exhibit P6). On the R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 4 contrary, according to the defendant-Board, it is not entitled to rebate as per Regulations(Exhibit D1). As per Regulation(Exhibit P6), if any person installed his own transformer in the premises, then, he would be entitled to rebate of 17½% on his consumption. Moreover, there is no such restrictions on account of 24 hours electricity supply in the circular(Exhibit P6), as now has been claimed by the defendant-Board, to deny the benefit of rebate, without issuing any notice or opportunity to explain its position, particularly when such benefit of rebate was given to the plaintiff-Firm till July, 2000. 13. Moreover, Regulation 45.3.1 postulates that existing connections/existing consumer, except AP tubewells located beyond 500 metres of the phirni shall be entitled for urban pattern supply facility provided they pay the actual cost of works involved in the shifting of supply lines etc. along with 16% establishment charges. Regulation 45.3.2 further posits that new connections except AP/T/wells falling beyond 500 metres of phirni can be released from urban pattern supply feeder. However, supply for existing as well as new consumers shall be given through single phase LT line for loads upto 10 KW and for loads above 10 KW at 11 KV (with consumer's own transformer). In such a case, metering will be done on LT and the consumption shall be enhanced by 3% to cover the transformation losses. 14. That means, Regulations(Ex.D1) are not at all applicable to the case of the plaintiff-Firm. As, it is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiff-Firm has installed its own transformer in the premises in the year 1996-97 at its own cost, therefore, it is entitled to the benefit of rebate, as per regulation(Ex.P6). Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant Board “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 15. In this manner, having completed all the codal formalities and considering the evidence in the right perspective, the trial Court has rightly R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 5 accepted the claim of the plaintiff-Firm. Not only that, the first Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010, which in substance is, as under:- “It is admitted case of the appellants that the respondent installed its own transformer at its cost in the year 1996-97 and this rebate was to continue, albeit, uninterrupted supply for 24 hours. It has not been mentioned in Ex.D1/A that this rebate of 7.1/2% will not be admissible to those consumers who have got installed their own transformer and has got 24 hours supply of electricity. So, Ex.P6 has not been repealed by Ex.D1/A, as there is no regulation of the appellants that if a consumer who is given rebate of 17.1/2% on each bill as per Circular No.5/96 because of purchase of transformer for installation thereof, in his own premises, he will loose facility of rebate after getting this uninterrupted power supply for 24 hours. Circular Ex.D1/A does not divulge about withdrawal of rebate of 7.1/2% from those consumers who have got installed their own transformer by purchase. So, this rebate of 7.1/2% shall continue to be given to the consumers like respondent because of installation of its own transformer. So, in sum, the circular Ex.D1/A applies in case of regulations mentioned in Ex.D1 and not in the case of the circular mentioned in Ex.P6. This rebate could be withdrawn in case of the respondent only, if it would have been incorporated in the Circular Ex.D1/A that this rebate of 7.1/2% shall be withdrawn even from those consumers who had installed their own transformer. When the rebate could not be withdrawn, the impugned amount, too, could not be recovered from the respondent by the appellants. Appellants have failed to prove that Sales Regulations No.45.3.1 and 45.3.2 mentioned in Ex.D1 apply in the case of the appellants. There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety of the finding of the learned trial court on all the issues, which are hereby upheld and affirmed.” 16. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the valid grounds, to negative the claim of the defendant-Board in the impugned judgments and decrees. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned R.S.A. No.3988 of 2010(O&M) 6 counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well- articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 17. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on its behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 18. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 19. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. August 24, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE