M/S OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 23-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 526 
MIS OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. 
v 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 662-663 of 2013) 
JANUARY 23, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 1910: 
ss. 30 and 58 read with PSEB Circular No. CC23/90 and 
Clause 8-b of Tariff Schedule - Levy of load surcharge at 
additional rate - Held: Was only meant for a load which was 
unauthorized or not sanctioned and if a particular load of a 
D consumer is sanctioned or authorized, load surcharge at 
additional rate could not be levied under Clause 8-b of the 
Schedule of Tariff - In the instant case, the load of the TG 
Set detected was a sanctioned load and was not an 
unauthorized load - Therefore, appellant could not be held 
E liable for load surcharge under Clause 8-b, even if by the aid 
of bus coupler, inter-transferability of load could be effected 
between the TG Set of appellant and the energy supplied by 
respondent-Board -
Demand raised against appellant 
quashed - Punjab State Electricity Board Circular No. CC 231 
90. 
F 
The appellant-owner of a sugar mill, installed a TG set 
of 3187.500 KW capacity and applied for its approval to 
respondent no. 1 State Electricity Board. The Chief 
Engineer, Commercial of respondent no. 1-Board, by 
G memo dated 8.12.1992, granted permission to the 
appellant for installation of two TG sets subject to some 
conditions. The instant appeals arose out of the demand 
notices issued to the appellant by the Sub-Divisional 
Officer of respondent no. 1 stating that as the TG Set and 
H 
526 
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. v. PUNJAB STATE 
527 
ELECTRICITY BOARD 
stand by load had not been sanctioned by respondent A 
no. 1, the appellant was liable for excess unauthorized 
TG set load of 3187.500 KW and standby load of 2226.330 
KW at the additional rate of Rs.1000/- per KW. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is apparent from the demand notice 
dated 01.06.1993 that the unauthorized load comprised 
the TG Set load 3187.500 KW and the standby load of 
2226.330 KW. So far as the standby load of 2226.330 KW 
B 
is concerned, the demand for unauthorized load has C 
been set aside by the Single Judge by the order dated 
01.04.2009 in CWP No.7299of1993 and the order has not 
been challenged by respondents· either before the 
Division Bench of the High Court or before this Court. In 
fact, the appellant has been issued a fresh demand notice 
D 
dated 12.06.2009 pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2009 
of the Single Judge in CWP No.7299 of 1993 restricting 
the demand of Rs.26,77,797/- for the unauthorized load 
on account of the TG Set. [para 10] [537-B-E] 
1.2. From the demand notice dated 01.06.1993, it is 
evident that'the reason for the demand for unauthorized 
load for the TG Set was non-compliance by the sugar mill 
E 
of Circular No.CC23/90 issued by respondent No.1-
Board. However, pursuant to the said Circular, the 
appellant applied for and was permitted regularization of 
F 
load of two TG Sets by memo dated 08.12.1992 subject 
to certain conditions .. Thus, on 09.12.1992 when the 
Flying Squad of respondent no.1 visited the sugar mill of 
the appellant, it had already been permitted installation 
of TG sets. It is pertinent to note that neither the first G 
demand notice dated 10.12.1992 nor does the second 
demand notice dated 01.06.1993 state that the demand for 
unauthorized load for the TG Set was being made 
because the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions 
mentioned in the memo dated 08.12.1992. In fact, in the 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013} 1 S.C.R. 
A two demand notices dated 10.12.1992 and 01.06.1993 no 
reference at all has been made to the memo dated 
08.12.1992. [para 11 and 14] [537-F; 538-B-C; 540-G; 541-
A; 543-G-H; 544-A] 
8 
1.3. It is evident from the demand notice dated 
01.06.1993 that for the unauthorized load, a demand has 
been made at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW in accordance 
with Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff applicable to the 
sugar mill of the appellant as notified in the Commercial 
Circular No.12/89. It will be clear from Clause 8-b of the 
C Schedule of Tariff that if the connected load of a consumer 
exceeds the sanctioned connected load, the excess load 
shall be unauthorized load chargeable at additional rate 
of Rs.1000/- per KW for each subsequent default. As on 
08.12.1992, the Chief Engineer, Commercial, has 
D sanctioned or permitted -or regularized the installation of 
two TG S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.