FAO No. 1991 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO No. 1991 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2009 Haryana State Electricity Board (Now HVPNL) & others …..Appellant Versus M/s Vikas Steel Rolling Millas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr ….Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate For the appellants -.- Nirmaljit Kaur, J . This is an appeal against the order dated 02.01.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the objections against the Award dated 07.03.2006. Briefly, the power supply of respondent No. 1 was temporarily disconnected from 23.05.1996 to 15.10.1997. According to the Rules and Regulations and Sales Circulars, the power supply is required to be restored, after the expiry of temporary disconnection. However, in the present case, the power supply could not be restored. The monthly minimum charges were levied on respondent No. 1. On refusing to pay the amount of monthly minimum charges, a civil suit was filed and subsequently, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed the Award, holding that no monthly minimum charges were payable for the month of 5/97 and 6/97 by 1 FAO No. 1991 of 2009 respondent No. 1. The objections filed against the aforesaid Award have also been dismissed. While challenging the aforesaid order in the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that respondent No. 1 was liable to pay monthly minimum charges after expiry of one year period, in terms of the provisions of Sales Circulars No. 14/93 and 35/95. It was submitted that the findings of the learned Arbitrator that monthly minimum charges is not leviable due to the reasons that respondent No. 1 was not able to use the electricity in its premises are misconceived, in view of the fact that it was the fault on the part of respondent No. 1, itself, that the electricity supply could not be restored in view of the fact that 11 KVA cable was found lying on the ground. Further, if respondent No. 1 wanted to get the electricity supply restored immediately, it should have contacted the concerned authorities, but no such evidence has been given by respondent No. 1 that it ever approached the concerned authority. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the objections against the Award of Arbitrator. The finding has been duly recorded that respondent No. 1 was not allowed to consume even a single unit of electricity during the period in question, as all the three jumpers were admittedly removed at the time of disconnection of the supply in the first instance. It was further found that neither the Sub Divisional Officer ever visited the premises to verify the actual position as informed by the Junior Engineer, nor he made any authentic correspondence regarding the alleged constraint after expiry of TDCO period i.e. on 16.04.1994 and it remained disconnected for about two months. The 2 FAO No. 1991 of 2009 appellants cannot suo-motu absolve themselves of the responsibility of ensuring that the electricity supply was duly restored. It was their responsibility to do so. Having failed, the appellant cannot burden the respondents with cost of something, which was not provided to them. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge July 10, 2009 Mohan Whether refer to Reporter: Yes/No 3