Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S B.B. International vs Uhbvnl & Ors on 9 December, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of 2011
Date of decision:09.12.2014
M/s B.B. International, Jhinwer Heri Road, Village Kutail, G.T.
Road, Karnal, through its partner Devinder Kumar.
... Petitioner
versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing
Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana), and others.
.... Respondents
II. Civil Writ Petition No.14103 of 2011
IRLE Kay Jay Rolls Private Limited ... Petitioner
versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing
Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana), and others.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Punia, Advocate,
and Ms. Dilraj Kaur, Advocate,
for the respondents in CWP No.4646 of 2011.
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate,
for the respondents in 14103 of 2011.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?No.
----
SANJEEV KUMAR
2014.12.12 12:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of 2011 -2-
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
I. CWP No.4646 of 2011
1. The petitioner, who had availed to himself the benefit of consumption of electricity during the Peak Load Time when there was a restriction, has a contention to make that Peak Load Exemption Charges had been collected from him without being apprised of the fact that there was a higher tariff payable and there was a restriction in force during that time. As innocent as the claim would be, the petitioner, however, has a strength of decision of this court to support his plea in CWP No.6680 of 2008, decided on 10.02.2009 titled as Haryana Chamber of Commerce and Industries and others Verus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, where the High Court had directed the matter to be considered by UHBVNL from a factual point of view of whether a consumer had been put on notice about the liability for higher tariff during the Peak Load Restriction Time. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, a clarificatory direction has been issued by the General Manager/Commercial, UHBVNL to all SEs and subordinates on 27.04.2010 (Annexure P6) that as regards persons where amounts had been charged for peak load hours where they have not been issued with an option to the supply of electricity and higher charges, only normal tariff shall be applied. It is clear in this case that the petitioner has availed to himself electricity from SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.12 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of 2011 -3- 15.06.2007 to 15.03.2010 which cannot be supported at higher rates and only normal tariffs could be collected. The UHBVNL has filed a reply and pointed out to Annexure R1 issued on 14.09.2009 which is only a general notice of liability to pay peak load exemption charges. This notice cannot prove what the High Court decision required in the above writ petition i.e. CWP No.6680 of 2008, referred to above, and how the billing was to be done in terms of the instructions given by the General Manager under P6.
2. Under the circumstances, I direct that the amount of peak load exemption charges shall be refunded. It could either be adjusted against future bills or at the option of the petitioner, the same be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks. The petitioner is at liberty to exercise the option of how he would want the excess amount collected from him would be dealt with and that option shall be exercised within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms.
II. Civil Writ Petition No.14103 of 2011
4. Consistent with the reasoning given in the above case, the petitioner is entitled to secure the benefit of refund of the amount paid as peak load exemption charges from March 2010 to January 2011 when actually the petitioner has given his written consent to pay additional charges. The attempt in this case was also that he did SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.12 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4646 of 2011 -4- not know that he had an option not to avail of this facility and, therefore, the payment which was made was thought to be a compulsory levy. Even the notice issued on 15.03.2010 by UHBVNL in the circular specifically spells out in clause 9 that all HT consumers would be intimated the terms and conditions of the liability for payment of peak load exemption charges by a notice duly acknowledged to avoid any misunderstanding. Admittedly, no notice had been issued as contemplated in the circular dated 15.03.2010. Consequently, the amount paid towards peak load exemption charges from March 2010 to 10.01.2011 is ordered to be refunded. The petitioner has an option to have the said amount calculated and adjusted against future bills if he expresses such a course of action through a notice that may be issued in a week's time.
5. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.12.2014 sanjeev SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.12 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document