Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 2202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage-II. - Petitioner
Versus
H.P.S.E.B. Ltd. & others - Respondents
CWP No.4441 of 2014
Decided On : 05-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Appellate Authority, in line with principles of natural justice.
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, sought relief under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appeal was dismissed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appeal was decided without serving the petitioner/appellant and without affording an opportunity of being heard, thus directing the Appellate Authority to pass a detailed and speaking order.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of opportunity for the petitioner 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 to be heard before the Appellate Authority, as mandated by principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The order 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 matter was directed to be disposed of within three months.
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, and initially the petitioner applied for a load of 403.82 KW in the year, 2002.
3. The respondent-Company called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.404025/- as security deposit, which, as per the petitioner, was deposited on 07.3.2002.
4. It has been averred that the petitioner further applied for increase of load from the existing load of 403.82KW to 2539.85 KW vide an application in December, 2007. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 20.3.2008, directed the appellant to deposit security on account of applied enhanced load to the tune of Rs.5,56,000/- which was also deposited on 24.3.2008. The petitioner received a notice on 10.6.2008 in which it was alleged that on the inspection of Sainj Township area, the connected load was found to be 1118.26 KW against the sanctioned load of 403.82 KW and demanded double amount of the demand charges from March, 2007 to February, 2008 to the tune of Rs.12,56,500/- and double the amount of energy charges for the same period to the tune of Rs.10,36,344/- totaling Rs.22,92,844/- , which was also asked to be deposited.
5. It has further been averred that on receipt of the notice, the appellant submitted a reply and that during the time of inspection, most of the residential premises had fallen vacant and no electricity connection to those premises have been provided. 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 referred to be 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 power factor), would have been immediately reflected in the MRI and consequently contract demand violation charge (CDVC) would have been reflected in monthly electricity bills. It is also averred that no such charges have ever been levied by the respondents in monthly electricity bills during the relevant tenure. It has been alleged that respondent No.2 vide communication dated 24.6.2008 observed that the alleged violation had already been established during the visit of Addl. Superintending Engineer, Shimla. The electricity bill was communicated along with the said communication directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.34,83,265/-. As the same was demanded without any basis, the order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, which was exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.155 of 2011, which was adjourned from time to time.
6. On 27.6.2013, the Appellate Authority could not hold the Court and the case was adjourned. The appeal was taken up withou
