Waryam Steel Castings Pvt.Ltd vs Punjab State Power Corpn.Ltd

1. The appellant-companies are arc furnace industries engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. The very nature of the operations carried out require the appellants to draw heavy load of electrical power Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.06.19 i.e. above 2500 KVA. The said connections are, 16:47:30 IST Reason:

3. A circular dated 23rd June, 1995 was issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) mandating all existing as well as prospective consumers, who had installed induction furnace units with a load above 1500 KVA, to shift to 66 3 KVA voltage supply failing which they were required to pay surcharge at the rate of 17.5%. All the appellants received due notice for conversion of their voltage supply from 11 KV to 66 KV on or before 31 st December, 1996. On receipt of such notices, the Induction Furnace Industries Association of the State of Punjab took up the matter with the State Government and on the advice of the High Powered Committee constituted, recommendations were made to the effect that all units existing as on 23rd June, 1995 should be exempted from the necessity of conversion to 66 KV as well as levy of 17.5% surcharge.

4. The aforesaid recommendations of the Committee (made in its meeting held on 19th January, 1999) were accepted by the Board and a commercial circular bearing No.25/1999 dated 8th June, 1999 was issued to the following effect.

“3. To resolve the issue, a Committee comprising of officers of PSEB and representatives of Public & Industry, 4 was constituted on the intervention of State Government. The committee was asked to study the grievances of Induction Furnace Industry in details and give its recommendations acceptable to both PSEB and Industry. Accordingly, the committee went into this issue in detail and has submitted the following recommendations to PSEB, which have now been accepted by the Board.

13. Thereafter, it appears that on 18th May, 2006, the North India Induction Furnace Association had moved the State Power Corporation against the levy of surcharge on all Arc Furnace consumers drawing electrical power exceeding 2500 KVA on 11 KV Supply Line. The Power Corporation on 27th June, 2006 had 14 advised the said Association to agitate the issue before the Electricity Regulatory Commission. Accordingly, a review petition was filed by the said Association before the Electricity Regulatory Commission seeking review of the tariff order of 2006-2007, which came to be dismissed on 13th October, 2006.

14. Thereafter, it appears that the State Power Corporation issued electricity bills for April 2007 and had imposed surcharge on Arc Furnaces established prior to June 1995. Challenging the same, writ Petitions were filed by aggrieved industries before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. While the said writ petitions were pending, the Regulatory Commission had passed its tariff order dated 17th September, 2007 for the year 2007-2008 and pursuant thereto a circular bearing No.66/2007 dated 28th November, 2007 was issued seeking to recover electricity surcharge from the concerned establishments for the financial years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The aforesaid subsequent events were brought on record in the writ petitions before the High Court by 15 means of amendments thereto.

The Commission notes that Large Supply Consumers with bulk demand are required to be catered supply at 33 KV or higher voltage. Where they are allowed to avail supply at lower than permitted voltage, the 12 same involves number of costs to the Board by way of setting up sub-station and its operation and maintenance. It also involves additional line losses and transformation losses for the Board. As such, these consumers are definitely liable to pay.

39. We do not consider it appropriate to go into the merit or demerit of determination of tariff rates in the appeals. Determina- 24

24. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed against the order of the High 2 AIR 1976 SC 127 27 Court as well as the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal. We, therefore, affirm the order of the High Court dated 9th September, 2011 as well as the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 27th July, 2012 and dismiss both set of appeals leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6625-6626/2013, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6289-6290/2013, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6291-6292/2013, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6276/2013, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6269/2013 Date : 19/06/2017 These cases were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For parties: