HPSEB Vs. JAWALAJI ALLOYS STEEL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the Chief Electrical Inspector had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and decide the dispute regarding which appeal/reference was filed before it by respondent No. 1 M/s Jawalaji Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the consumer).

(2.) According to the H.RState Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) the consumer at a time when peak load restrictions were in force had violated the peak load restrictions and therefore, was liable to pay peak load charges. The consumer filed a petition under Sections 32 and 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Chief Electrical Inspector (CEI) claiming that the demand raised by the Board was unlawful and illegal. An objection was raised by the Board that the CEI had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Chief Electrical Inspector held that he was entitled to decide the dispute in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act and allowed the petition of the Consumer. Thereafter, the Board filed an appeal before the Secretary, M.P.P and Power, Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 36(2) of the Act. One of the contentions raised was that the Chief Electrical Inspector had no power to decide the dispute. The appellate authority held that the Chief Electrical Inspector had been vested with powers to entertain the dispute under Sections 24(2) & 26(6) of the Electricity Act and under Clause 32 of the Sales Manual and therefore was entitled to decide the dispute. This order dated 24.10.2007 is under challenge in the writ petition.

(3.) Shri K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the Board has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Bassi Cold Storage, Khara and another, 1994 AIR(SC) 2544. In that case the Apex Court was dealing with condition No. 29 of the Sales Manual issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board, which in sum and substance is virtually identical to condition No. 32, which reads as follows:-