HARVINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner applied on 10-3-1992 to the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short the Board) for a new electric L.S.(large supply) connection for running an induction furnace. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- as security on the same day and his application was registered. It is common case of the parties that the connection was released on 4-7-1995 after all the formalities had been completed. The Board as per its circular CC No. 41/95 dated 4-5-1995 decided to recover one time charge from the large supply consumers demanding contract demand higher than 60% of theconnected load and to charge monthly minimum charges on the connected load basis instead of Contract Demand basis. The Assistant Executive Engineer by his memo dated 12-2-1999 called upon the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rupees 2,17,000/- on account of demand charges which according to him were payable by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid circular but were not paid at the time of the release of the connection. He was given ten days' time to deposit the amount, failing which, the connection would be disconnected. It is against this demand that the present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the same on the ground that it is illegal and not payable even under the circular referred to by the Board.

(2.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Board has filed its written statement controverting the allegations made by the petitioner and it is pleaded that the audit party raised an objection to the effect that the petitioner had not deposited the demand charges at the time of the release of connection and that the sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- was less charged. It is further pleaded that on receipt of a representation from the petitioner the matter was again examined and it was found that the demand raised by the Board was valid and that the aforesaid demand charges were payable by the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties. A copy of the circular on the basis of which the demand charges have been levied was produced before us during the course of arguments. The relevant part of clause (A) of the circular which deals with the contract demand charges reads as under:-