DELUXE ENTERPRISES Vs. H.P.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an industrial Unit. It receives power supply from the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders comprised in Annexures P -1 dated 18.4.2007, P -2 dated 29.1.2008, P -3 dated 5.8.2008 and P -8 dated 19.11.2009. The petitioner prays that the annexures, aforesaid, be quashed and set aside. The petitioner prays, that a further direction be rendered to the respondents, to, levy tariff on the electricity consumed by the petitioner -unit from 1.11.2001 to 20.8.2004, on, the basis of maximum recorded demand during any of the months in the years falling, in, the aforesaid period.

(2.) THE respondents resist and repudiate the contentions of the petitioner. The controversy inter -se the parties at contest before this Court, is qua, the tenability of tariff, on, the electricity consumed by the petitioner -unit. Admittedly, the petitioner, is, a consumer of electricity under the respondents. In an agreement concluded inter -se the parties, existing at page 109 of the paper book, the petitioner -unit, had, agreed/accepted, to pay electricity tariff to the respondents as would come to be levied, by them, in, accordance with the operable rules, at, the prevalent time. The petitioner, too, does not controvert or contest the fact, that, it was under an enjoined legal obligation to defray to the respondents/suppliers, of electricity to its unit at Nalagarh, tariff at, the prevalent rates. In face thereof, now it is imperative to determine, as, to whether the respondent, had levied tariff consumed by the petitioner -unit, in, accordance with the prevalent rates. The tariff, as, demanded by the respondent from the petitioner -unit, for, consumption of electricity by it, is, on the strength, of, Annexure RS -A. A perusal of the reply of the respondents and of the aforesaid annexures, divulges, the fact that the annexures aforesaid ordain the levy, of, electricity tariff by the petitioner -Unit, on a two way basis, in as much, as, the petitioner -unit was obliged to pay both demand charges and energy charges. Demand charges have been conveyed, in, Annexure RS -A, to, imply that it would be levied, on, the actual maximum recorded demand, in, a month in any 30 minutes interval, in, a month or 80% of the contract demand whichever, is, higher.

(3.) EVEN though, there, also, exists another agreement at page 113 of the paper book, which, too, comprises a concluded contract inter -se the parties at contest, manifesting the fact of the petitioner -unit demanding an assured contracted supply of electricity to it to the extent of 600 KVA, on, which nature of demand the concomitant charges, as, envisaged in Annexure RS -F, were to be levied. Nonetheless, yet it having come to be concluded after the expiry/elapse of the disputed period, levy of tariff by the respondents on the assured demand of 600 KVA by applying the principle of tariff applicable, to, demand charges, is, of no relevance.