IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 17588 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 04.02.2009 M/S Punjab Con.Cast Steels ...Petitioner versus The Div. Commissioner and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of memo (Annexure P-1), asking him to pay Rs.41679/- towards electricity charges at the commercial rate for the electricity consumed in the 'factory outlet' and 'A.T.M machine'. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 04.03.2008 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the above stated demand from the petitioner. Two fold contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly it is urged that since the petitioner has taken an independent 66 KV (EHT) LS industrial connection, nothing prohibits it from utilizing a small portion thereof for running the 'factory outlet' or the 'A.T.M' machine. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the respondents are entitled to charge the petitioner at commercial rates for the electricity consumed C.W.P NO. 17588 OF 2008 -2- in the 'factory outlet' and 'A.T.M machine', it is entitled to 7½ % HT rebate along with 3% EHT for the reason that the petitioner is a consumer for 66 KV supply. In support of the second contention, the petitioner relies upon the observations made by the Senior Executive Engineer (Operation) Division, Focal Point, Ludhiana in his Memo No. 4579-80 dated 18.09.2007, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any merit so far as the first contention is concerned. Since there is a difference between 'industrial' and 'commercial' consumption rates, the respondents are entitled to recover the same at the commercial rates to the extent of consumption of power by the petitioner for running the 'factory outlet' and the 'A.T.M' machine, which are not industrial or related activities. However, the petitioner's second contention regarding entitlement to certain rebates under the Regulations, in my considered view, merits consideration. Notwithstanding the recommendations made in the petitioner's favour by the Senior Executive Engineer (Operation) Division, Focal Point, Ludhiana, vide his memo dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure P-12), the respondent authorities have failed to address the said aspect. At the same time, it may not be desirable for this Court to express any final opinion in relation thereto, at this stage. C.W.P NO. 17588 OF 2008 -3- Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, namely, the Chief Engineer, Commercial or any other Officer authorized to decide such like matter, to consider the recommendations made by the Senior Executive Engineer (Operation) Division, Focal Point, Ludhiana, regarding the petitioner's entitlement to 7½ % ST rebate and 3% EHT and dispose of the said claim within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order. In case the authorities hold the petitioner entitled to the aforesaid rebates, the excess payment, if any made by it, shall be refunded and/or adjusted in the future bills. FEBRUARY 04, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE