Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage-II. – Petitioner
Versus
H.P.S.E.B. Ltd. & others – Respondents
CWP No.4410 of 2014
Decided On : 05-7-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
Headnote:
Electricity Act - Writ Petition - Section 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Undertaking of the Government of India, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as the appeal was dismissed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal had been disposed of without serving the petitioner/appellant and without affording an opportunity of being heard, and therefore, directed the Appellate Authority to pass a detailed and speaking order.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of opportunity for the petitioner/appellant to be heard before the Appellate Authority, leading to the quashing of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Authority, as mandated by the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003, was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Mandi, H.P., and the Appellate Authority was instructed to dispose of the matter within three months from the receipt of the judgment.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other order quashing the order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi (exercising the powers of Appellate Authority), in an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereby the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant and to remand the case back to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner/appellant before the Appellate Authority.
2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is an Undertaking of Government of India and was the consumer of the respondent-Board for the consumption of electricity. The petitioner applied to the respondents for the supply of electricity for the Project and Township, which includes residential, as well as, official colony at Sainj, District Kullu, H.P, initially applied for a load of 216.77 KW in the year, 2004.
3. The respondent-Company called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,17,000/- vide letter dated 26.7.2004, which was deposited in cash by the petitioner on 13.8.2004, alongwith Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,73,600/-.
4. The petitioner further applied for increase of load from the existing load of 216.77 KW to 1085 KW vide an application in September, 2005. Respondents asked the petitioner to deposit security on account of enhanced load to the tune of Rs.3,47,000/- in cash and a Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,95,200/-. The petitioner deposited the security amount of Rs.3.47,000/- on 21.9.2005 along with Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,95,200/- on 2.12.2005.
5. The petitioner further submitted an application on 24.12.2007 for extension of load to that of 3285.39 KW and a contract demand of 1460 KVA, as it was expected that in the near future, the petitioner would be demanding more load to run its activities and expected occupation of its residential quarters.
6. That respondent No.2, vide communication dated 26.2.2008, directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.23,58,700/-. However, the said amount was on higher side and accordingly respondent No.2 issued a revised demand notice on 20.3.2008 for an amount of Rs.8,06,600/-. The said amount was deposited on 24.3.2008.
7. It has further been averred that on 17.3.2008 and 18.3.2008, officer of the respondent-Company visited petitioner’s Sainj Township area and made certain inspections. However, the petitioner received a notice dated 10.6.2008. It was further averred in the notice that upon the inspection, the connected load was found to be 4843.18 KW against the sanctioned load of 216.77/1085.97 KW. It was further intimated that double of the amount of demand charges from March, 2007 to February, 2008 amounting to Rs.25,31,660/- and double the amount of energy charges for the same period to the tune of Rs.27,72,314/- totaling Rs.53,03,974 may be deposited.
8. It has further been averred that on receipt of the notice, the appellant submitted reply and that during the time of inspection, most of the residential premises had fallen vacant and no electricity connection was provided to those premises. It has also been averred that, in case, there was an increase in load, it would result in increase of the maximum demand, which would have been recorded in Meter Reading Instrument (hereinafter to be referred as MRI). It has also been averred that in case, there was an increase in the load during the last one year, the MRI would have immediately recorded the increase in maximum demand exceeded the contract demand which was to be 80% of the connected load (taking 0.9 factor), would have been immediately reflected in the MRI and consequently contract demand violation charge (CDVC) would have been reflected in the monthly electricity bills. It is also averred that no such
