JUDGEMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J.:-

Leave granted.

2. The facts very briefly are that the appellant owns a sugar mill situated at Phagwara, and the respondent no.1-Board is supplying electricity to the sugar mill. In 1989, the appellant installed a TG Set of 3187.500 KW capacity to meet some of its electricity demand and applied for approval of its TG Set to the respondent no.1. By memo dated 08.12.1992, the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the respondent no.1 granted permission to the appellant for installation of 2 No. TG Sets subject to some conditions. On 09.12.1992, however, the Flying Squad, Jalandhar of the respondent no.1 visited the sugar mill of the appellant and checked the electricity connection at the sugar mill. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Flying Squad, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Suburban), Phagwara of the respondent no.1 issued a demand notice dated 10.12.1992 to the appellant stating inter alia that the TG Set and stand-by load had not been sanctioned by the respondent no.1 and the appellant was liable for an excess unsanctioned load of 4904.127 KW for load surcharge at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW, which worked out to Rs.49,04,127/-.

3. The appellant made a representation to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Suburban), Phagwara, and to the Chief Engineer, Commercial of respondent no.1 against the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/- . When there was no response from the aforesaid two authorities of the respondent no.1, the appellant filed a Writ Petition CWP No.370 of 1993 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/-. The Division Bench of the High Court held in its order dated 30.03.1993 that the respondent no.1 could charge for the excess load which was to be the sum of the rated capacities of all the energy consuming apparatus in the consumer’s installation, but from the order impugned by the High Court or from the documents filed by the respondent no.1 before the High Court along with its written reply, there is nothing to show that the TG Set having the capacity of 3187.5 KW was an energy consuming apparatus. The Division Bench further held in its order dated 30.03.1993 that for the purpose of charging for the excess load, the load of the stand-by machinery was to be excluded and, therefore, the load to the extent of 2226.330 KW of the stand-by apparatus in the order impugned before the High Court could not be included. For the aforesaid reasons, the Division Bench quashed the demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/- leaving it to the respondent no.1 to pass afresh appropriate order, if so advised, with liberty to the appellant to challenge the same, if required.

4. Thereafter, by a fresh demand notice dated 01.06.1993, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Distribution), Suburban Sub-Division, Phagwara, raised the very same demand of Rs.49,04,127/- for the unauthorized TG Set load of 3187.500 KW and stand-by load of 2226.330 KW totalling to 6520.155 KW at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW. The appellant filed a second Writ Petition CWP No.7299 of 1993 challenging the aforesaid demand. The learned Single Judge, who heard and disposed of the writ petition, held in his order dated 01.04.2009 that the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court in earlier Writ Petition CWP No.370 of 1993 that the stand-by load of 2226.330 KW could not be included in the demand for excess load was binding on the respondent no.1 and hence the demand of excess load on account of the stand-by load could not be raised again by the respondent no.1. Regarding the connected load of the TG Set, the learned Single Judge of the High Court referred to the earlier order dated 21.08.2008 of the learned Single Judge in which it was recorded that the learned counsel for the appellant had very fairly stated that he would accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent no.1 and as the Dispute Settlement Committee had decided the matter against the