M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs Punjab State Electy Board & Ors

2. The facts very briefly are that the appellant owns a sugar mill situated at Phagwara, and the respondent no.1-Board is supplying electricity to the sugar mill. In 1989, the appellant installed a TG Set of 3187.500 KW capacity to meet some of its electricity demand and applied for approval of its TG Set to the respondent no.1. By memo dated 08.12.1992, the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the respondent no.1 granted permission to the appellant for installation of 2 No. TG Sets subject to some conditions. On 09.12.1992, however, the Flying Squad, Jalandhar of the respondent no.1 visited the sugar mill of the appellant and checked the electricity connection at the sugar mill. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Flying Squad, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Suburban), Phagwara of the respondent no.1 issued a demand notice dated 10.12.1992 to the appellant stating inter alia that the TG Set and stand-by load had not been sanctioned by the respondent no.1 and the appellant was liable for an excess unsanctioned load of 4904.127 KW for load surcharge at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW, which worked out to Rs.49,04,127/-.

3. The appellant made a representation to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Suburban), Phagwara, and to the Chief Engineer, Commercial of respondent no.1 against the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/- . When there was no response from the aforesaid two authorities of the respondent no.1, the appellant filed a Writ Petition CWP No.370 of 1993 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/-. The Division Bench of the High Court held in its order dated 30.03.1993 that the respondent no.1 could charge for the excess load which was to be the sum of the rated capacities of all the energy consuming apparatus in the consumer’s installation, but from the order impugned by the High Court or from the documents filed by the respondent no.1 before the High Court along with its written reply, there is nothing to show that the TG Set having the capacity of 3187.5 KW was an energy consuming apparatus. The Division Bench further held in its order dated 30.03.1993 that for the purpose of charging for the excess load, the load of the stand-by machinery was to be excluded and, therefore, the load to the extent of 2226.330 KW of the stand-by apparatus in the order impugned before the High Court could not be included. For the aforesaid reasons, the Division Bench quashed the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/- leaving it to the respondent no.1 to pass afresh appropriate order, if so advised, with liberty to the appellant to challenge the same, if required.

‘8-b. If the connected load of a consumer exceeds the sanctioned connected load, the excess load shall be unauthorized load. Such excess of the connected load shall be charged load surcharge at an additional rate of Rs.1000/- per KW for each subsequent default.” It will be clear from Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff that if the connected load of a consumer exceeds the sanctioned connected load, the excess load shall be unauthorized load and such excess connected load shall be charged at additional rate of Rs.1000/- per KW for each subsequent default. If, therefore, any load is sanctioned by the appropriate authority of respondent no.1-Board, such load cannot be held to be unauthorized load or excess load liable to surcharge at the rate of Rs.1000/- per KW. As we have already found, on 08.12.1992, the Chief Engineer, Commercial, has sanctioned or permitted or regularized the installation of two TG Sets and hence the load of 3187.500 KW of the TG Set detected on 19.12.1992 was a sanctioned load and was not an unauthorized load for which the appellant can be charged load surcharge at the rate of Rs.1000/- per KW under Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff.

15. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the demand raised against the appellant in the demand notice dated 01.06.1993 and the demand notice dated 12.06.2009 for unauthorized load of the TG Set is quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.