LPA No.304 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.304 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 1, 2009 M/S OSWAL AGRO MILLS LIMITED ...APPELLANT (SUGAR DIVISION) VERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. RAHUL SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. That the present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1-4-2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide which Civil Writ Petition No.7299 of 1993 was disposed of on a concession given by the learned Counsel for the appellant- petitioner that he would accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Respondent-Board with regard to inter-transferability of load between turbo generator set of the petitioner and the P.S.E.B after hearing both the parties. On report, having been submitted by the Committee to this court and in view of the concession made by the Counsel for the appellant, the T.G.Set load could not be faulted and was accordingly upheld by the Learned Single Judge. The Appellant had installed a modernised sugar mill for which he was sanctioned total load of 1616.028 K.W. In the Year 1993 the appellant was issued show cause notice to deposit an amount of Rs.49,04,127/- on the ground that load of 6502.155 K.W. was detected being unauthorized load in the mill of the appellant against sanctioned load of 1616.028 K.W., thereby using 4904.127 K.W. electricity unauthorizedly. LPA No.304 of 2009 -2- In the said show cause notice the aforesaid unauthorised load was admitted by Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma, representative of the appellant-Mill at the time of checking on 9-2-1992. Even the appellant Mill in its letter dated 19- 10-1989 addressed to the respondents has written as under:- “Our T.G.Load is independent of any other supply which cannot be transferred/ inter changed on any other supply.” Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rahul Sharma has contended that earlier similar notice (Annexure P-8) was quashed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30-3-1993 (Annexure P-8/A) leaving the respondent-board to pass appropriate order, if so advised. Now again on the same set of facts the impugned show cause notice (Annexure P-13) has been passed by the respondent-board directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.49,04,127/- so as to avoid disconnection of its electricity supply. It has further been contended by the appellant that at the time of raid, energy consuming apparatus (T.G. Set) having capacity of 3187.05 K.W. was not getting electricity and therefore terming the said load as unauthorized on it is wholly unjustified in view of condition Nos.14 and 8 (B) of the Schedule of Tariff envisaged in General Conditions of Tariff. According to him, even the standby load of 2226.330 K.W. was to be excluded at the time of calculating the excess load as per (Circular Annexure R-1). We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records pertaining to the case. The dispute primarily centers around the permissibility of adding connected load on the T.G. Set i.e.3187.05 KW. and the standby load 2226.330 K.W. to the sanctioned load for calculating the actual/excess load. With regard to the standby load it was held by this Court vide order LPA No.304 of 2009 -3- dated 30-3-1993 that addition of standby load i.e.2226.330 K.W is not permissible by the Respondent-Board and the said finding of the Division Bench cannot be faulted with. As far as the permissibility of adding connected load on the T.G.Set i.e. 3187.5 K.W. to the sanctioned load so as to calculate the total/excess load is concerned, the Counsel for the appellant had himself fairly stated before the Learned Single Judge that viz. the said dispute, he would accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the Respondent Board. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the committee submitted its report wherein it was opined that with the aid of bus coupler, the inter-transferability of the load was possible meaning thereby and leading to an inevitable conclusion that the load of the T.G.set is to be included and termed as ‘excess load’ for the purposes of calculating the total load. Thus, accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1-4- 2009. Thus, in view of the findings returned by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 1-4-2009 on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the appellant and the report submitted by the Committee, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and is accordingly upheld and the present appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 1, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE