Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Kundan Mill Board And Paper Mills And ... vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 19 November, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10858 of 2000
Date of Decision : 19.11.2013
M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another ....... Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for, Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocate, for respondents.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm with Shri Mohinder Singh and Smt. Jatinder Kaur as partners in terms of partnership deed dated 1.4.1997 duly registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, while petitioner No. 2 is a proprietor concern of one Narinder Paul Singh. The petitioner No. 1 firm is stated to have originally came into existence on 26.5.1989 and obtained electricity connection in its name on 31.12.1989. Narinder Paul Singh took on lease 2 kanal of land from other co-sharers on 26.5.1992 and has a separate electricity connection. Both the firm and proprietorship concern are stated to be separately registered as industrial units.
The beginning of the dispute is stated to be a communication issued by respondent No. 5-The Assistant Executive Engineer of the PSEB stating that at the time of verification of the test report for the electricity connection of petitioner No. 2, it was found that there was another factory which appears to be a sister concern of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 was required to construct a partition wall between the two factories with a report submitted to the office. This communication was responded to on 23.12.1992 stating that Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2013.11.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 10858 of 2000 -2- the two units were not interconnected and were separate legal entities and as per advise, boundary wall has been constructed. However, once again on 22.2.1993, the petitioners were advised that there should be separate entry gates for the two premises for release of the separate electricity connections. These gates were accordingly fixed and thus, the connection was obtained by petitioner No. 2 in August, 1993.
It appears that an audit objection was taken in margin note No. 46 dated 14.3.1995 of PSEB on 14.3.1995 requiring an amount to be charged of ` 1,88,082/- on account of clubbing of the two connections and this in turn resulted in a communication dated 15.5.1995 addressed by respondent No. 5 to petitioner No. 1 disclosing the reason for the same to be that the two businesses were being run in the same premises, although in different account numbers. This was despite the fact that on receipt of the audit report, the SE (Operations) Ludhiana, had addressed a letter on 8.6.1995 to Chief Auditor referring to the report of the XEN that it was clear that both the connections were running separately and the same cannot be clubbed nor the amount could be charged as advised by the Audit Party.
The petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in August, 1995, but the same was withdrawn in July, 1999. Petitioner No. 1, on withdrawal of the suit, made a reference to the Dispute Settlement Committee.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Dispute Settlement Committee did not permit the petitioner to lead any evidence, but only required the petitioner No. 1 to be represented on 19.4.2000, which Committee decided the matter against petitioner No. 1 on 31.5.2000. This decision was informed to the petitioner No. 1.
Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2013.11.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 10858 of 2000 -3-
The electricity connection of petitioner No. 1 was also disconnected on account of non payment with which the grievance is made.
In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge has been laid to the demand raised against the petitioner through a revised bill by clubbing the two connections, to the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee dated 19.5.2000 and for declaring CC No. 10 of 1998, issued vide memo of 20.5.1998 providing for Dispute Settlement Committee ultra vires the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1948 and other ancillary reliefs.
On hearing learned counsels for the parties, it transpires that the Dispute Settlement Committee has recorded only the following order :-
" The consumer's representative Sh. Gurcharan Singh appeared before the Committee and his view point was heard. The case was examined thoroughly and after studying the reports submitted by the committee consisting of SE/OP Suburban Circle, Ludhiana and Director/Enforcement, Ludhiana for clubbing of load against A/c Nos. MS-31 and MS-50, it was unanimously decided that the case falls under the criteria of clubbing and as such the charges levied are recoverable."
We may notice that any internal audit objection is only an opinion and cannot be by itself a justification for raising of a supplementary or initial bill. The concerned authorities are required to examine whether there should have been clubbing of the two connections for purposes of raising of the bill based on material sought from the petitioners. This was apparently not done. Except for general platitude that the whole matter has been examined, it is impossible to decipher any reasons for clubbing the two connections when it has not even been stated as to how the two entities are interconnected. The only objection initially raised was the allegation of there being electricity connections on the same land without there being separation of the premises Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2013.11.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 10858 of 2000 -4- for which purpose the petitioners were called upon to construct a wall separating the two premises and to have a separate entrance. This was done by the petitioners and the concerned authorities were satisfied and even confirmed this fact to the Chief Auditor in their communication. Thus, it appears that the impugned decision has been taken only on the basis of the audit objection and is devoid of any reason.
We do find support from the observations made in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2001 (1) PLJ, 179 referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners wherein it has been held that the liability cannot be fastened on a party merely on the basis of an audit note.
In view of the aforesaid, we quash the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee dated 31.5.2000 qua petitioner No. 1 leaving it open to the concerned authority, if so advised, to hold fresh proceedings in accordance with law and adequate opportunities be given to the parties to establish their stand and any decision to be taken would have to be a reasoned order keeping in mind the stand of the respondents and not merely based on an audit objection.
The petition is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 19.11.2013 sjks Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2013.11.22 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh