HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18996 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 **** M/s. Aero Toughened Glass (P) Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. PSEB & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. MS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondents ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-industry seeks quashing of the orders dated 25.08.2008 and 06.10.2008 (Annexure P13 and P14, respectively) whereby a demand of Rs.5,67,000/- raised against it on the average consumption basis for the disputed period from July 2001 to 09.01.2002 has been upheld by the Zonal Disputes Settlement Committee and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the same. (2). Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention here that the petitioner-industry has got an electricity connection under the “Large Supply Consumer” category. The meter installed in the petitioner’s premises was found to be CWP No.18996 of 2008.doc - 2 – defective during the period from July 2001 till it was replaced with a new meter on 09.01.2002. The new meter installed on 09.01.2002 was checked by the MMTS authorities on 11.03.2002 in the presence of representative of the petitioner and found “OK”. In order to determine the petitioner’s liability towards electricity charges for the period when the meter was found defective, namely, July, 2001 to 09.01.2002, the PSEB authorities calculated the average consumption for the months from January to March 2002 and raised the demand of Rs.5,72,877/-for the disputed period, giving rise to these proceedings. (3). The petitioner questioned the above-stated liability on the plea that the new meter installed in its premises on 09.01.2002 was also defective and this fact was duly acknowledged by one Deputy Chief Engineer/OP, Tarn Taran vide memo dated 05.08.2002 (Annexure P7). (4). In order to appreciate the contention, it would be apposite to reproduce the contents of the letter dated 05.08.2002 which reads as follows:- “Keeping in view the contents of the representation of M/s. Aero Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd., Goindwal Sahib A/c. No.LS-17. Detailed upon has been submitted by Sr.Xen/Op. Suburban Divn., Tarn Taran vide his memo NO.7536 dated 21.07.2002 which is self explanatory and is enclosed herewith. CWP No.18996 of 2008.doc - 3 – Sr.Xen/Op. Suburban Divn., Tarn Taran has recommended that “Keeping in view the consumption data from 3/98 to 6/01. The new energy meter has claimed doubtful by the consumer may be replaced and consumption pattern of 2 years after replacement of meter may be considered for calculating final average to overhaul the account for the aforesaid period, if necessary. The undersigned is of the view that case submitted by Sr. Xen/Op. Suburban Divn., Tarn Taran seems to be genuine which may please be allowed. Sd/- Dy.Chief Engineer/OP, Tarn Taran, Tarn Taran” (5). It may be seen that the contents of the above-reproduced letter are nothing but what the petitioner industry has alleged in its representation given to the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee, on the other hand, considered the above contention threadbare and has held as follows:- “The Committee observed that the consumption of meter depends on use of electricity no. of hours run by the industry No. of shifts etc. The increase in consumption immediately after replacement of defective meter on 09.1.2002 may be attributed to installation of correct meter. The committee has also gone through the annual consumption of the consumer before and after replacement of the defective meter. As per consumption data placed before the Zonal DSC by presenting Officer, the annual units consumed against this connection are as under: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CWP No.18996 of 2008.doc - 4 – 298142 456838 564596 + 179964 = 744560 882119 481427 470752 339457 239693 for 9 months, annualised cons. 397523 Also includes defective period O/H for 6 months The above date indicates the upward trend in units consumed during the period 1999 to 2002 and thereafter there is fall in consumption from 2003 onwards. This suggests that the consumption recorded is directly proportional to the use of connection by the consumer, as the meter is the above period had been working OK except for the period of defective working of the meter w.e.f. July, 2001 to 09.01.2002, for which the consumer has been charged on the basis of actual recorded consumption of correct meter immediately after the replacement of the defective metering equipment.” (Emphasis applied) (6). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. I say so for the reason that the facts regarding installation of the new meter on 9.1.2002 or its checking by MMTS Authorities on 11.03.2002 in the presence of the petitioner’s representative are not in dispute. (7). The average consumption of the petitioner for the disputed period, from July, 2001 to 09.01.2002 has been determined on the basis of its consumption from January 2002 to March 2002 only, i.e. the period during which the new CWP No.18996 of 2008.doc - 5 – meter was operational and in ‘OK’ condition. Assuming that the newly-installed meter was also defective as claimed by the Deputy Chief Engineer vide his memo dated 05.08.2002 (Annexure P7), the defect, if any, noticed after March 2002, was inconsequential with reference to the issue involved. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 04.03.2011 Vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge