(2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs-3071-74-LPA-2025 in RA-LP-19-2025 IN LPA-509-2015 M/S MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD.

….Appellant V/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND ANOTHER ……Respondents CMs-3077-80-LPA-2025 RA-LP-20-2025 IN LPA-510-2015 M/S MALWA COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD.

….Appellant V/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD. AND OTHERS ……Respondents

1. Date when Order was reserved 12.12.2025 2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 27.02.2026 3. Date of uploading order 27.02.2026

4. Whether operative part or full FULL order is pronounced

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of Not Applicable full order, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for applicant-respondent-PSPCL.

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshnoor Singh Chugh, Advocate, for non-applicant/appellant.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

CM-3072-LPA-2025 in RA-LP-19-2025 and CM-3078-LPA-2025 RA-LP-20-2025 These are applications for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the review application(s).

For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed.

Delay of 107 days in filing the review application(s) is condoned.

RA-LP-19-2025 and RA-LP-20-2025 Both the review applications are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed by this Court. For the purpose of adjudication, the facts of RA-LP-19-2025 in LPA No.

509 of 2015 are being taken into consideration.

2. The applicant/respondent No.1-PSPCL has filed the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for reviewing/recalling judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed by this Court in LPA-

509-2015 arising out of CWP-27236-2013.

3. The non-applicant/appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. The dispute arises out of CWP No.27236 of 2013 filed by applicant/respondent No.1, i.e., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL), assailing the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by respondent No.2, i.e., Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab. Vide the said order, the Ombudsman held that the demand raised upon the non-applicant/appellants for payment of Monthly Minimum Charges (MMC) in respect of 11 KVA electricity supply was not legally sustainable. However, the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition modified the order of the Ombudsman dated 20.08.2013 and upheld the claim of applicant/respondent No.1-PSPCL, holding that it is entitled to levy Monthly Minimum Charges (MMC) from each industrial consumer, who were constituent members of the cluster formed by the non-applicant/appellants. Aggrieved by the modification of the Ombudsman’s order and the recognition of PSPCL’s entitlement to levy MMC on individual cluster members, the non-applicant/appellants preferred the LPAs, which were allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 09.12.2024 and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.

4. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in SLP (C) Nos.5367–5368 of 2025, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the applicant to raise all permissible contentions by way of a review application, if so advised.

6. This Court, upon a specific query, called upon learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1 to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. However, no such error could be pointed out. A perusal of the impugned judgment further reveals that all the grounds now sought to be raised in the present review application had already been duly considered and adjudicated upon in the judgment dated 09.12.2024. Consequently, no patent error is discernible in the said judgment, and no ground for interference in review jurisdiction is made out. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed by this Court in LPA-509-2015 are reproduced hereinbelow:

“11. Learn