JUDGMENT

(PER HON’BLE MRS. SEEMA GUPTA, TECHNICAL MEMBER - ELECTRICITY)

1. The instant appeal is preferred by the Appellant - Asian Fine Cements Pvt. Ltd challenging the order dated 29.03.2017 (“impugned Order “) passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Respondent No1 / PSERC/ State Commission) in Petition No 63 of 2016. By way of the Impugned Order, State Commission has held that though the 66 kV line to the Appellant premises is extended from the nearest 66 kV grid focal point Rajpura, the load of the Appellant is actually fed from 220kV mother substation Rajpura and thus the 66 kV line from 220 kV substation Rajpura to 66 kV substation, Focal Point Rajpura is the common point of line for which Appellant is liable to pay proportionate cost of the line including bay in terms of Regulation 9.1.1 (a) of the Supply Code 2014 (“ Supply Code”) in addition to the full cost of 66 kV service line from Focal point Rajpura to the premises of the Appellant.

2. The facts, in brief, which lead to filing of the instant appeal, are as follows:

Asian Fine Cements Pvt. Ltd. (“Appellant”) has set-up a fine cement grinding plant at Rajpura Road in Patiala. Appellant applied for an electricity connection for the said plant with load of 7500 KW and contract demand (CD) of 6500KVA. The Appellant was granted/released a connection from the 66 kV sub-station Focal Point Rajpura. The Appellant is aggrieved because the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (“PSPCL/Respondent No. 2”), vide demand notice dated 18.05.2016, has imposed charges beyond the 66 kV sub-station at Focal Point Rajpura from which the connection was released i.e. proportionate cost for a line from 220 kV Rajpura substation to the 66 kV sub-station at Focal Point Rajpura, though, this line is an existing line and levy of such cost was upheld by State Commission in the Impugned Order.

It is of relevance to note following dates 

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, Appellant filed instant appeal before this Tribunal on 22.04.2017 with following prayers :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be allowed and following reliefs granted in favour of the Appellant:-

A Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2017 being in violation of the regulation 9.1.1(a)(ii) of the Supply Code-2014;

B. Necessary action under section 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 may kindly be taken against the PSPCL and its officials for violating the provisions of the Regulation 9.1.1(a)(ii) of the Supply Code-2014 by raising the impugned demand of Rs. 68,02,380/- and Rs. 5,85,000/- in violation of the above said regulation, in the interest of justice.

C. It is, further, prayed that during the pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Tribunal the respondent No-2 may kindly be directed to start the work of laying the line as the Appellant has already deposited Rs. 2,42,75,000/- as per estimate prepared by the respondent and Rs. 39,23,000/- as bay charges and further to extend time for.

D. Call for the records of the case from the respondents.

E. Any other relief or order which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Appellant, in the interest of justice.”

Heard Mr Sourav Roy, learned counsel on behalf of Appellant, Mr Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of State Commission ( Respondent No 1) and Ms Meenkshi Midha, learned Counsel for PSPCL ( Respondent No 2). Mr Dharamvir Kamal, Additional superintending Engineer of PSPCL also made submissions. Their submissions are summarised below:

Submissions by the Appellant

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that The Impugned Order ought to be set aside as the Demand Notice is contrary to law as

1) Section 46 of the Act states that a distribution licensee is entitled to charge for supply of electricity expenses which are “reasonably incurred” in providing the electric line or electric plant.

2) Regulation 9.1.1(a)(ii)