IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2656 of 2009 & connected matters. Decided on: December 2, 2010. 1. CWP No. 2656 of 2009. USMS Saffron Company Inc., Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 2. CWP No. 2710 of 2009. M/S Garg Electronics, Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 3. CWP No. 2731 of 2009. M/S Milano Bathroom Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 4. CWP No. 2732 of 2009. Safire International Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 5. CWP No. 2764 of 2009. Pooja Printers . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 6. CWP No. 2765 of 2009. Prakash Labels Private Ltd. . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 7. CWP No. 2848 of 2009. Malohtra Clinics Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 8. CWP No. 2849 of 2009. Jawala Vidyut Accessories Ltd. . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 9. CWP No. 3085 of 2009. M/S Bagrrys India Ltd. . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 10. CWP No. 3310 of 2009. Lotus Food Stuff . Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. 11. CWP No. 520 of 2010. 2 M/S Khandelia Oil & General Mills. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. H.P.Housing & Urban Development Authority & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate and Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S.C.Sharma, Advocate, for HIMUDA in CWP Nos. 2849 of 2009 and 3085 of 2009. Mr. Janinder Mittal, Advocate, vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for HIMUDA in CWP No. 2656 of 2009. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate for HIMUDA in CWP Nos. 2710, 2731, 2732, 2764, 2848 of 2009 and 520 of 2010. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for HIMUDA in CWP Nos. 2765 and 3310 of 2009. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for Electricity Board in all the petitions. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG, for respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The simple dispute raised in all these Writ Petitions pertains to the demand raised by the Electricity Board. The impugned demand, is towards the expenses incurred by the Electricity Board in setting up a Sub Station at Industrial Estate, Bhatoli Kalaon. The Industrial Estate is a project of HIMUDA. It is seen that in that regard an agreement had been executed between HIMUDA and the Electricity Board for the purpose of setting up the Sub Station, referred to above . An agreement dated 30th December, 2006 was entered into between the HIMUDA and the Electricity Board. Paragraphs 2,3 & 4 of the agreement reads as follows: “2. That the recovery of expenditure incurred by Board out of funds obtained from HIMUDA shall be made from prospective consumers within the above industrial Estate developed by HIMUDA and Industrial consumers of adjoining areas who will be fed from the proposed Sub Station. The above charges shall be recovered as per Regulations of HPERC for recovery of expenditure incurred by the Board from the prospective industrial consumers who apply for the release of power from this Sub Station. 3. The Board undertakes to repay the amount of Rs. 720.05 Lacs, so provided by the HIMUDA either after effecting 3 the recovery of expenditure from the prospective industrial consumers at Industrial Estate, Bhatoli Kalan or from the consumers who will be fed from the aforesaid Sub Station or from all the prospective Industrial Consumers who will be connected with the aforesaid Sub Station in full till its full realization. The less amount realized from the prospective industrial consumer in this regard shall be to the account of HIMUDA. 4. That the Board is free to release the power connection from this substation to industrial consumers outside the industrial plots developed by HIMUDA after recovering the charges towards the power connection to the said consumers and the recovered amount shall be adjusted against the amount deposited by HIMUDA.” 2. The contention of the petitioners is that when they obtained the electricity supply to their premises, they had already paid the required charges and hence they are not bound to pay any further amounts in terms of the agreement, referred to above. Still further, it is submitted that in terms of the agreement, referred to above itself, the Board has to work out the pro-rata expenditure recovered from all the consumers fed from the Sub Station and that the same cannot be limited to the consumers in the Industrial Estate alone, even if the supply is from the Sub Station. In this context, one submission which assumes significance is that the petitioners are not fed from the Sub Station set up pursuant to the agreement dated 30th December, 2006. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the HIMUDA submit that the Sub Station is set up mainly for the consumers of the Industrial Estate and the expenses are to be recovered from the consumers only. It is also submitted that in terms of the affidavit filed by the consumers before the Electricity Board, they are bound to meet the infrastructural development charges of the Electricity Board. 4. Having heard the petitioners, Electricity Board and the HIMUDA and also the learned Addl. Advocate General, it is fairly clear that there has to be an exercise undertaken by all the stake-holders meeting together to resolve the various disputes which are simply factual. As far as the Electricity Board is 4 concerned, they are entitled to recover the costs proportionate to the quantum of supply to each consumer. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of as follows: i) In case the petitioners are fed from the Sub Station set up as per the agreement dated 30th December, 2006, referred to above, the Electricity Board shall work out the pro-rata liability of the petitioners, taking into consideration also the other connections through the Sub Station either in the Industrial Estate or outside. ii) There will be a direction to the first respondent to convene a meeting of the industrial consumers in the Estate and the second respondent, verify the factual position and take a decision jointly with the Electricity Board in the matter within a period of three months from today. The Electricity Board-second respondent shall also make available the records pertaining to the factual position as to the supply effected from the Sub Station. iii) Till action, as above is taken, the interim orders passed by this Court will continue. 5. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 2, 2010. ( Justice V.K.Sharma ), (karan) Judge.