Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bathinda Integratedd Coop Cotton vs Pseb And Ors on 12 September, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.09.2014
The Bathinda Integrated Cooperative Cotton
Ginning and Spinning Mills ltd ... Petitioner
versus
P.S.E.B Patiala and another ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate
for the respondents
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for quashing orders dated 10.6.1995 passed by respondent No. 2 vide which peak load surcharge amounting to Rs.4,55,848/- was imposed upon the petitioner for violating the peak hour load restrictions as well as decision dated 16.10.2001 of Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee, Bathinda and order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the Dispute Settlement Authority of the respondent-Board (P-3).
On 9.6.1995, Assistant Executive Engineer, Patiala visited the GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -2- factory premises of the petitioner mill at about 3 P.M to check the seals etc as well the working of the meter which was found in order. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.06.1995 (P-1) was received by the petitioner that the petitioner-mill was working in violation of the Peak Hour Load Restriction between 7.30 P.M to 9.45 P.M. None of the officials of the mill had been called at the time of alleged violation. The petitioner-mill approached the Dispute Settlement committee. However, the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee in its meeting held on 16.10.2001 rejected the appeal of the petitioner mill.
Aggrieved against the above said order, the petitioner mill filed appeal before the Dispute Settlement Authority, PSEB, Patiala, which was rejected vide order dated 2.9.2002 (P-3).
The case of the petitioner in short is that the electricity connection of the petitioner-mill was checked on 9.6.1995 at about 3 P.M to check the seals etc as well the working of the meter which was found in order. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.06.1995 (P-1) was received by the petitioner-mill. No official of the petitioner-mill was joined during the inspection. The demand of Rs.45,000/- has been raised, which is against the principle of natural justice.
Learned counsel has referred to circular issued by PSEB dated 14.02.1982. As per this circular, the PLHR had to be measured through the metering equipment installed at consumer premises only. GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -3- Thus, the method adopted declaring the PL hours violation dated 9.6.95 for A/C No. LS-23 by sitting at 33 KV/S Bathinda at distance of 7 km from the premises is totally unlawful and violative of instructions.
In compliance of order dated 30.11.2012 passed by this Court, respondents have placed on record copy of instructions dated 14.02.1992 as R-1 and as per this circular, it has been decided to levy a peak load exemption charge PLEC on all continuous process industries w.e.f 01.03.1992. PLEC shall be levied at the rate of Rs.1/- per KWH of the power relaxation permitted by this office during the peak load hours over and above the normal tariff measured through the metering equipment installed at the consumer premises. The additional charge will be calculated assuming a month consisting of 30 days.
The respondents have further placed on record the copy of statement of Er. J.S. Mann, Mill Engineer, Bathinda, Integrated Cotton and Spg. Mill Ltd, Batinda (R-2) who had stated that they had not received any notice from the Board reg timing for peak load restrictions applicable to consumer A/C No. LS-23 during 6-95. The industry is located in 37 acres of land. The main unit of industry is located at about half kms from the entrance gate. They have been granted exemption from P.L. Restriction for the period 1.4.95 to 30.10.95 and the entire amount of bill NO. 637 already stands deposited. In case any industrial power was required from 1.6.95 to 9.6.95 during P.L hours the GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -4- same was met from D.G. Sets. Copy of memo dated 14.12.95 along with copy of bill dated 12.12.95 has also been placed on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the Dispute Settlement Authority of the respondent-Board (P-3) does not require any interference.
A perusal of instructions dated 14.2.1992 shows that it was decided to levy a peak load exemption charge PLEC on all continuous process industries w.e.f 1.3.92. PLEC shall be levied at the rate of Rs.1/- per KWH of the power relaxation permitted by this office during the peak load hours over and above the normal tariff measured through the metering equipment installed at the consumer premises. The petitioner was allowed only 800 KW load during peak hours and the checking was conducted on 9.6.1995 at Grid station jointly by SEX/T.A Ropar and XEN/T.A Ludhiana. As per statement made by Er. J.S. Mann, Mill Engineer, Bhatinda (R-2), he had admitted that the unit had been granted peak load restrictions w.e.f 1.4.95 to 30.10.95 for 800 KW load. It was denied that any notice was received from the Board regarding timing for peak load restrictions applicable to consumer A/C No. LS-23 during 6-95 and between 1.6.95 to 9.6.95, the consumer had not used power for industrial purpose during Peak Load Hours. The requirement of industrial power from 1.6.95 to 9.06.95 was met from D.G Sets.
Now the statement made by Er. J.S. Mann has to be GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -5- examined by this Court.
As per Annexure P-2, vide order dated 29.3.95, the petitioner-unit was granted ad hoc exemption from peak load exemption of 800 KWA for a period of two months i.e from 01.04.1995 to 31.5.1995 on payment of usual peak load exemption charges. It has been specifically observed that for this purpose, an independent feeder shall be sanctioned by Operation Organization and separate 11 KV Industrial Feeder be converted into an Independent Feeder, as per CC No.47/92 and all relevant charges as per these instructions be recovered from the consumer under intimation to this office. The consumer was fed from 3 KV sub station through 11 KV independent feeder. This fact is evident from Anneuxre P-2 The checking was conducted on 9.6.1995 at Grid station jointly by SEX/T.A Ropar and XEN/T.A Ludhiana. In the case of independent feeder, the grid sub station is best place to check the PLR violations. In case of big firms, the load is generally switched off or changed over DG by the time checking squad is allowed inside and reach the meter room. The Feeder from the Grid Sub Station is independent feeder of the petitioner which was checked on 9.6.95 during PLR hours and load was observed to be running of 11 KV which is more than 1000 KVA. The consumer was found violating the PLR hours on 9.6.95. The petitioner was only allowed 50 KW during PLR GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -6- hours and the quantum of line losses of independent feeder and accuracy of the grid meter does not have any effect on the merits of the case. The log sheets also reveal that the petitioner was regularly using 30-35 amps on 11 KV during PLR hours between 1.6.95 to the date of checking of 9.6.95 when the peak load exemption allowed to him ended on 31.5.95.
Another fact which requires consideration is that the petitioner-unit was found committing violations of Peak Load Hours earlier on 21.04.1993 when the checking was done by Xen/Enf. Bhatinda and he was charged Rs.2,2,7,923/- for peak load violations. This amount was deposited by the petitioner. The present violation is second time. The petitioner-unit was granted peak load exemption for the period 1.4.95 to 31.5.95 for 800 KW load as ad hoc exemption and which was to expire on 31.5.95. Thereafter, the independent feeder cadre was sanctioned and the load on the 11 KV feeder, feeding the consumer was checked at sub station on 9.6.95 during peak load restriction hours when the sanction 800 KW had already expired. The load found running was of the order of 55 Amp. On 11 KV during the period 7.30 PM to 9.45. Since the load of 55 Amp on 11 KV was violating the peak load hour restrictions, the petitioner was charged Rs.4,55,846 as compensation on the rates applicable for second defaulter. The explanation given by the department is very clear that the grid sub GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17845 of 2002 (O&M) -7- station is best place to check the PLR violations. In case of big firms, the load is generally switched off or changed over DG by the time checking squad is allowed inside and reach the meter room. The accuracy of the grid meter therefore, cannot be doubted. Moreover, the respondents have made reference to a similar case of M/s Bathinds Chemicals Ltd, LS-10 Bhatinda which was also checked during the same checking of 10.6.95 from the Grid Station itself and the case was decided as Case No. 229 of 1999 in the same manner.
After going through the detailed order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the Dispute Settlement Authority of the respondent-Board (P-3), no case is made out for quashing of order dated 2.9.2002.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 12.09.2014 G Arora GAURAV 2014.09.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document