RAJ KAMAL SPINNERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1973, the petitioner concern was sanctioned an electric load of 20 H. P. for running its 1200 spinddles for manufacturing worsted yarn in its mill at Chheharta. Amritsar, On August 10, 1973, it made an application for extension of this load by 100 H. P. It also deposited the requisite security amount of Rs. 4910/- In response to its application, the petitioner was asked vide Annexure P. 1. To express its willingness to avail of the enhanced load. This was communicated by the petitioner vide Annexure P. 2 on Sept. 7, 1973. Later a test report was also submitted by it on Sept. 12, 1973. Since the respondent Board failed to sanction or provide the extra load demanded by the petitioner it served a notice (Annexure P. 4) on April, 18, 1974. Asking the Board to release the extra load at the earliest. This notice of the petitioner remained unreplied.

(2.) On March, 12, 975. petitioner's premises were inspected by the Sub- Divisional Officer. Flying Squad, who detected that the petitioner had connected an unauthorised load of 18.69 K. Vs. To the existing connection and as a result thereof a letter was addressed to the petitioner on March 20, 1975. To disconnect the extended laid and to furnish the details of the additional motor load duly authenticated by purchase vouchers. Copy of this letter is Annexure P. 6 The petitioner claims to have submitted the documents with regard to the purchase of additional 15 H. P. motor on Jan. 17. 1975, and also explained therein that during the period of consumption of the extra load. Its 12 H. P. humidification plant was not in use on account of winter season. Not satisfied with this explanation of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer of the Board sent a demand notice (Annexure P-7) on Sept, 16. 1975, for RS, 20343.60 to be paid within fifteen days from the date of the notice. The details given in this letter were that besides the consumption charges of the unauthorised load, this amount included Rs. 8137.44 as additional charges (penalty) in pursuance of circular No. 43597/4407/TT.P.-90-F.R. dt. June 3. 1974(Annexure P-9). This additional demand was also repeated in the bills for Dept., 1975. Requiring the petitioner to pay the same before Sept. 30, 1975.

(3.) The petitioner now impugns this demand primarily on the ground that the respondent Board has no jurisdiction or authority to impose any penalty for the unauthorised use or consumption of electricity over and above the sanctioned load for the reason that the Board cannot unilaterally prescribe a different tariff or rate than what has been stipulated by the agreement (Annexure A-3) entered into between the parties nor does any provision of the statute or regulations framed thereunder authorise the Board to impose any such penalty. As against this, the stand of the Board is that the above noted circular. Annexure P-9 providing for penal rates for unauthorised consumption of electricity has been issued in exercise of its powers under S. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948. Having herd the learned counsel for the parties. I find that though the non-action on the part of the respondent Board from August 10, 1973 when the petitioner applied for the extra load to the date of the inspection of the premises. That is, March 12, 1975, deserves no deprecated as it virtually borders on harassment of the petitioner particularly in the light of the communication, Annexure P-1, of its capacity to release extra power and asking for the consent an willingness of the petitioner to avail of the connection applied for yet this petition is devoid of any merit.