EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERS) Vs. VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 31.7.2017 passed by the Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum at Kasumpti, Shimla-9, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, "Forum"), whereby complaint under Regulation 17 of the HP Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter, "Regulations"), having been filed by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, "complainant") against the wrongful, illegal and arbitrary act of withholding and retention of a sum of Rs.56,66,869.00 deposited against the proposed expenditure of works to construct 33 KV dedicated feeder on AB Cable alongwith 33 KV bay at 132/33 KV Substation to take off point M/s Virgo Aluminum Ltd. alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum accrued thereupon, came to be allowed, petitioner-Board (hereinafter, "Board") has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking therein following relief:

(2.) For having a bird's eye view, facts, as emerge from the record, are that the complainant, which is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and is a consumer of the Board, applied for the release of electricity connection. Pursuant to its request, the complainant was provided with electricity connection with the connected load of 4500 KW on a common feeder. As per record, initially 4500 KW load was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the Chief Engineer (OP) Shimla on the request having been made by the complainant (Annexure P-1), however, subsequently, the complainant, on account of interrupted supply, voltage fluctuation, tripping of common feeder and shut down etc., applied and requested to the Board for construction of separate 33 KV dedicated feeder. The Chief Engineer (Comm.), HPSEBL, Shimla, approved load of 4500 KW on 33 KV supply voltage through 33 KV dedicated feeder on AB Cable alongwith 33 KV bay at 132/33/11 KV Sub-station, Johron, Kala Amb. Necessary sanction for the aforesaid load was accorded by the C.E. (OP) Sought, Shimla on 8.3.2010. (Annexure P-2). After having prepared necessary estimates, for laying necessary cables etc., C.E. (OP), South, HPSEBL, vide letter dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure P-3), required the complainant to supply the material worth Rs.16,73,493 and deposit the balance cost of Rs.39,93,376.00 with the Board. As per Board, since there were corridor constraints in Kala Amb industrial area, it proposed to string 120 mm 2 AB Cable on existing 33 KV Double Ckt. Line from Kala Amb to the proposed site of complainant Unit. Board made a provision of 8 metres long PCC poles of 200 kg working load to provide additional support AB Cable, where spans were lengthy and further provision of conversion of 2 pole structure to 4 pole was made at the take off point of the complainant. It is averred in the petition that the Board issued demand notice on 20.4.2010 for a sum of Rs.39,93,376.00 as consumer share and also required it to deposit all the approved materials. The complainant deposited Rs.39,93,376.00 with the Board on 3.6.2010.. It is also not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle Nahan wrote a letter dated 11.6.2010 to the C.E. (OP) South, Shimla and requested for technical sanction of estimates under Serial No. 2(1) of revised DOCP 1997 and CE (OP) South, accorded the sanction on 24.6.2010. (Annexure P-6) It is also not in dispute that the complainant purchased 1722 Metres long AB Cables on 13.2.2011 and 14.2.2011 from M/s Disha Agencies, Chandigarh for Rs.15,19,540.00 and deposited the same with the Board on 23.4.2011, which was duly acknowledged by the Board vide letter dated 23.4.2011. As per averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed with the same, process of tendering of work for erection of 9 eight metre PCC poles and EXLPE Cable etc. was awarded to M/s Shakil Ahmed ("A" Class Contractor) vide letter dated 24.1.2013 (Annexure P-7), with the direction to complete the awarded work within a period of two months. Board has further averred in the petition that since the complainant was pressing hard for completion of work, therefore, Board repeatedly requested the contractor to complete the work. Board has further averred that the right of way was to be provided/arranged by the complainant for the purpose of erection of poles and laying cables but since the complainant failed to do so, work could not be completed within stipulated time, which fact was seriously disputed by the complainant.

(3.) Since Board failed to accede to the request of the complainant for more than six years, complainant was compelled to file a complaint under Regulation 17 of the Regulations before the Forum below, praying therein for the following main relief: