Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 19.2.2013, a demand notice was issued by respondent no.3 to the petitioner demanding parallel Operating charges @ ₹22,05,900/- per month with effect from January 2008. The entire dues came out to ₹21,12,29,268/-.

7. It was on 19.12.2018 that a supplementary agreement to the 'Principal Agreement' was executed between the petitioner and respondent no.3, whereby, Clause 5 of the 'Principal Agreement', which was parallel Operating charge, was deleted. The relevant provisions of Clause 5 of the supplementary agreement is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

11(S) The petitioner again sent a letter on 8.11.2011 and requested respondent no.3 for refund of amount charged towards "Parallel Operating System" levied with effect from 1.4.2000 as they were unjustified to charge the same. On 15.2.2013, the petitioner again wrote to respondent no.3 asking them for modification of the 'Principal Agreement'. Thereafter, instead of carrying out the amendment in the 'Principal Agreement', on 19.2.2013, respondent no.3 sent demand notice asking the petitioner to deposit ₹21,12,29,268.00/- for "Parallel Operating System" for the period from January, 2008 to December, 2012. Even though the said demand was clearly barred by limitation and also barred by Clause 56(2) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

13. He submitted that the entire energy produced by the petitioner's Captive Power Plant was used by them. In 2002, the petitioner informed respondent no.3 that the petitioner was keeping the electrical system in isolated condition and requested to put an end to the "Parallel Operating System" and stop charging fees for the same and to delete Clause 5 of the 'Principal Agreement'. The petitioner had sent a number of reminders informing the Power Corporation that, they were running in islanding mode and do not require to operate the "Parallel Operating System". In spite of several communications and reminder, the Power Corporation did not remove the parallel operating facility. On the contrary, it kept on charging minimum consumer guarantee. In spite of repeated reminders, the respondent did not take any decision or action and continued to take advantage of their own delay.

46. Very often it is seen that a Company, who had entered into an agreement to provide a facility, in spite of the consumer requesting them to stop the facility, they continue with the service/facility and keeps on charging its consumer, under the mask that there is an agreement, and they purposely delay in cancelling the agreement and continue billing and charging the consumer and make profit from their own inaction.

47. However, the petitioner had continued to pay the minimum guarantee charges for few months even after disconnection of the cables without any demur, hence, it is not open for them too to ask for refund of the fees already paid. However, it is also not open for respondent no.3 to charge for Parallel Operating facility for the period from January 2008 to 30.11.2018.