Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. – Respondent
CWP No. 1722 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mr. Dhananjay Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Mr. Kulwant Chauhan
The contractual demand reduction from 40000 KVA to 32000 KVA is permanent and not subject to temporary revision under the 2018 regulations.
Headnote:In this case concerning the contractual demand of M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd., the petitioner, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, contested a ruling by the Electricity Ombudsman declaring reductions in the contract demand as permanent. The court analyzed the relevant regulations, specifically the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code and its amendments. The key finding was that the petitioner’s various reductions in demand from 40000 KVA down to 32000 KVA were to be treated as permanent changes and were unaffected by the 2018 amendments to the regulations. Therefore, the court affirmed the Electricity Ombudsman's decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. affirmation of ombudsman order (Para 5) |
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? .
For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 1-Ambuja Cements Ltd.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent No. 1 – Company [M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd.
– I Unit (Suli)] (in short ACL-I Unit) was allowed to gradually reduce its contracted demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA, from 39000 KVA to 37000 KVA, from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA and from 35000
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
KVA to 32000 KVA in different years. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (in short the ‘HPSEBL’) has come up in this petition against an order passed by respondent No. 2 – the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman (in short the ‘Electricity Ombudsman’) holding that the reductions in contract demand allowed by the petitioner were permanent. According to the petitioner-HPSEBL, reduction int he contract demand from 35000 KVA to 32000 KVA was temporary. The contract demand affects the tariff charges for ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1, hence the writ petition.
2. The Case [Concerning ACL-I Unit (Suli) of respondent No. 1]
2(i) On 17.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) respondent No. 1 applied for reduction of contract demand from 40000 KVA to 39000 KVA without any change in the existing connected load for 132 KV connection .
Vide Office Order dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure P-6)
petitioner-HPSEBL sanctioned the reduction in the contract demand. 2(ii) On 29.09.2015 (Annexure P-7) respondent No. 1 applied for further reduction in the contract demand from 39000 KVA to
37000 KVA.
Petitioner-HPSEBL allowed the request and passed order on 09.11.20215 (Annexure P-8).
2(iii) Third request for reducing the contract demand was made by respondent No. 1 on 27.05.2016 (page 85 of the paper-book) to bring it down from 37000 KVA to 35000 KVA.
The above was accepted by the petitioner-HPSEBL on
01.07.2016 (Annexure P-10).
2(iv) The last and fourth request for reducing the contract demand was made by respondent No. 1 on 01.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) for further reducing it to 32000 KVA from the existing 35000 KVA.
The petitioner-HPSEBL allowed the request on 01.12.2016 (Annexure P-12).
2(v) On 07.02.2020 (Annexure P-15) the petitioner-HPSEBL issued a notice to respondent No. 1 demanding charges from ACL-I Unit of respondent No. 1 amount to 91,80,000/- & 11,47,500/-
for ACL-II Unit of respondent No. 1 for Financial Year 2019-2020 mentioning therein reduction in contract demand was temporary. This was followed by another notice on 10.02.2020 (Annexure P-16). On 25.02.2020 petitioner-HPSEBL addressed office communication (Annexure P-17) to respondent No. 1 referring to the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018 dated 31.07.2018 published in the Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh on 07.08.2018 as applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2019 (in short the ‘2018-Regulations’). The notice conveyed that sanctioned contract demand in favour of respondent No. 1 was 39000 KVA whereas bill had been issued for 32000 KVA for ten months in a financial year up to January, 2020; Such billing being contrary to 2018-Regulations, corrected demand charges were to be deposited by respondent No. 1 for 90% of 7000 KVA (39000 KVA – 32000 KVA=7000 KVA) x 425/- x 4 months. Petitioner thereafter deducted the charges from running bills of respondent No. 1.
2(vi) With grievance against the demand charges levied by the petitioner-HPSEBL, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 21.07.2020 before the Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum, HPSEBL (in short ‘the Grievances Redressal Forum’). Respondent No. 1, inter alia, prayed for direction to HPSEBL to refund a sum of
1,83,60,000/- deducted from its running bills. Direction was sought to HPSEBL not to deduct any amount fr
