LexPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus HARVINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
V.
HARVINDER SINGH
JANUARY 19. 2006
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY:
Application for new electric large supply connection-Additional demand
C by Electricity Board from consumer as per a Circular--Circu/ar applicable
w.ef a particular date-{.'onsumer had applied for the connection prior to the
specified date-By clarificatory Circular, the previous Circular made applicable
also to those whose connections had nut been released on the specified date-
Propriety of the demand-Held: The Circular was applicable also to the
D applicants making application prior to the specified date--Demand was
justified.
Respondent had applied for a new electric large supply connection
on 10.3.992. He deposited the security amount. Appellant-Board made
additional demand over and above the already deposited amount on the
E basis of one time contract demand charges in excess of 60% of the
connected load, from Large Supply consumers in view of Circular dated
4.5.1995 and clarificatory Circular dated 6.2.1996. The represent~tion of
the respondent against the demand was rejected by the authorities of the
Board. Writ Petition thereagainst was also dismissed by High Court on
the ground that the earlier Circular did not require the consumers who
F had applied for new connection prior to 1.4.1995 to pay such charge. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The demand raised cannot be said to be without sanction
G of law. The Circular dated 4.5.1995 was also applicable to those applicants
H
whose applications were made prior to 1.4.1995 and were pending. It
cannot be conceived that those who had applied for extension would be
required to pay demand, but not those who were fresh applicants.
(489-G-H(
486
PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD 1·. HARVIN DER SIN GI I [PASA VAT. J]
487
2. The clear intention of the appellant-Board as is culled out from a A
combined reading of the two Circulars is that those applicants whose
applications were made prior to 1.4.1995 but to whom connections/
extensions had not been released before the issue of the Circular dated
4.5.1995 even though they ap,plied before 1.4.1995 were required to pay
the amount on the basis of one time contract demand charges in excess of B
60% of the connected load. (489-E-F]
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2398 of2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1999 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2829 of 1999.
H.M. Singh, Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav and Ms. Shabha Saifi for the
Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of D
a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the
demand made by the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') for
a sum of Rs 2, 17.000/- was impermissible.
The background facts in a nutshell are as under:-
The respondent applied to the Board for a new electric L.S. (large
supply) connection on I 0.3.1992 for running an induction furance. He
desposited a sum of Rs. 2, 01,000/- as security on the same day and his
application was registered after all the formalities were completed. The Board
E
in terms of its Circular CC No. 41/95 dated 4.5.1995 decided to recover one F
time charge from the Large Supply consumers demanding contract demand
higher than 60% of the connected load and to charge monthly minimum
charge on the connected load basis instead of Contract Demand basis. An
additional demand of Rs. 2, 17,000/- over and above the amount al read
deposited was made on 12.2.1999 on the basis that the respondent had not
depositer.l, the requisite amount in terms of the Circular dated 4.5.1995 and G
clarificatory Circular dated 6.2.1996. The respondent made a representation
to the authorities saying that there was no liability for liquidating the demand.
But the authorities of the Board rejected the stand and held that the respondent
was liable to make the deposit. A writ application was filed before the Punjab
and Haryana High Court intera/ia raising the following question for H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] I S.C.R.
A adjudication of the High Court:
B
c
(i)
"whether the representation made by petitioner can summarily
be rejected without affording opportunity of hearing?
(ii) Whether the releasing of electricity connection will be taken on
the date when all forExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.