CWP No. 7299 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7299 of 1993 Date of decision : April 01, 2009 M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and another ...... Petitioner (s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...... Respondent(s) *** Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari *** Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Riar, Senior Advocate with Mr.D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed challenging the notice (Annexure P-13) calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 49, 04,127/- on the ground that a load of 4904.127 KW was detected being unauthorised load in the mill of the petitioner. As per his notice the following was found by the inspection team:- CWP No. 7299 of 1993 2 (1) 1106.325 KW Total running load checked by Enforcement Staff (2) 3187.500 KW Connected load on T.G. Set (3) 2226.330 KW Connected standby load on T.G. Set 6520.155 KW Total 1616.028 KW (-) PSEB Sanctioned Load 4904.127 KW Excess Load As per commercial circular No. 12 of 89 connected load is defined as follows:- Connected Load: The connected load means the sum of the rated capacities of all the energy consuming apparatus in the consumer's installation. This shall not include the stand by or spare energy consuming apparatus installed through the change over witch provided requisite prior permission had been accorded by the competent authority in the Board as per provisions of NOTE (iii) below :- NOTE:- (iii) The consumer shall be allowed the change over switch with the permission of competent authority, subject to the conditions that the particular gadget/machinery supposed to be operated through a particular motor whose change over switch is deployed should be specified in the test report itself and verified as such at the time of release of load and the bigger of the two motors shall be taken into account while computing the connected load.” It is not disputed that with regard to the same dispute earlier CWP No. 370 of 1993 was filed. The same had been disposed of with the following observations:- “For the reasons recorded above, the order Annexure P/8 is quashed, leaving the respondent/Board to pass appropriate order, if so advised, and the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, if required. Since the CWP No. 7299 of 1993 3 electricity supply of the petitioner was disconnected on passing of the order Annexure P/8, we direct the respondent-Electricity Board to reconnect it forthwith which would of course be subject to the final order to be passed by the respondents as required under the circular.” It was thereafter that the impugned notice was issued. The dispute centers around the permissibility of adding the load connected on the T.G. Set viz. 3187.500 KW and the standby load i.e.2226.330 KW. As regards the second component in the above mentioned writ petition the Division Bench had found as follows:- “As per circular Annexure R/1, for the purposes of charging for the excess load, the load of the standby machinery was to be excluded. However, in the order Annexure P/8 the load of the standby apparatus to the extent of 2226.330 KW was included. This is also in violation o the circular mentioned above and the demand raised through order Annexure P/8 is, thus, not in accordance with the circular aforesaid and, cannot be sustained in law.” This finding regarding the standby load is thus binding on this court and consequently it is held that the addition of 2226.330 KW was not permissible. However, with regard to the first component viz. Connected load on T.G. Set, this Court on 21.8.2008 had recorded as follows:- “Arguments in part heard. The dispute in this petition primarily relates to the question, whether with the aid of a device called a bus coupler, inter transferability of load could be effected between the captive generation apparatus of the petitioner and the energy supplied by the respondent- CWP No. 7299 of 1993 4 board. This is a disputed question of fact. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he would accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent-board on this aspect of the matter. Let the Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent-board, after hearing both the parties, give an opinion on the question whether the bus coupler installed by the petitioner would permit inter-transferability of the load between the Turbo Generator Set of the petitioner and the PSEB. Let representatives of both the parties appear before the Dispute Settlement Committee in this regard on 28.8.2008. The matter is adjourned for two weeks i.e. 8.9.2008. Copy of this order be given to both the learned counsel under the signatures of the Reader of this Court.” The said committee submitted its report wherein it has been found that with the aid of the bus coupler the inter-transferability of load was possible. In view of the statement dated 21.8.2008 it is, therefore, held that the addition on account of the load connected on the T.G. Set cannot be faulted with and is upheld. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. April 01 , 2009. ( AJAY TEWARI ) sunita JUDGE