IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:18.02.2026 M/S VARDHMAN LAMINATORS ...PETITIONER VERSUS PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the respondents.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing assessment orders dated 12.07.2022 and 26.12.2022, Annexures P-1 and P-3, respectively, as well as appellate order dated 18.01.2024, Annexure P-5, passed by respondent authorities under Sections 126 and 127 of Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “2003 Act”). Petitioner has also challenged the subsequent assessment orders dated 11.06.2024 as well as 19.06.2024, Annexures P-6 and P-7, respectively, passed by respondent No.2, whereby a demand of Rs.50,83,215/- has been raised.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner-firm has a shopping complex with five floors and electricity is drawn from a connection released by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “PSPCL”) with a sanctioned load of 274.99 KW under the Non Residential Supply (NRS) category. Counsel submits that after inspection of electricity meter on 08.07.2022, a report was prepared that petitioner was supplying electricity to tenants on different floors and by impugned provisional assessment order, Annexure P-1, petitioner was asked to deposit charges for alleged unauthorized use of electricity. Petitioner filed objections and by impugned final assessment order, Annexure P-3, petitioner was found liable to deposit Rs.19,18,582/-. Counsel states that petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal upon deposit of 50% of the disputed amount, but appeal has been rejected vide order dated 18.01.2024, Annexure P-5, which is non-speaking. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, counsel asserts that fresh assessment orders, Annexures P-6 and P-7, have been passed, whereby a demand of Rs.50,83,215/- has been raised, out of which, 50% of the demanded amount has been deposited. Counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions of the Supply Code, 2014, as well as sale circulars to contend that position has undergone a change during the pendency of the writ petition and arrangement for supply of electricity to tenants has now been accepted by PSPCL. It is his argument that appellate authority has passed a cryptic order, which cannot be sustained as it has failed to support its order with any reasons.

3. Opposing the petition, counsel for respondent(s)-PSPCL, has made a reference to response filed on behalf of respondents to urge that petitioner was found to be selling electricity to the tenants, which is evident from Annexure R-1. He submits that as per applicable provisions, a calculation was made and a demand has been raised vide impugned order, Annexure P-7. Counsel has taken an objection that petitioner has failed to avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of 2003 Act, against the subsequently passed final order of assessment, Annexure P-7.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions, this Court is of the view that impugned appellate order, Annexure P-5, being bereft of reasons, deserves to be set aside.

5. While dismissing the appeal, appellate authority has recorded as under:-

“On 18-01-2024 during the meeting kept for hearing of this case, after hearing the consumer and department on the petition of the consumer the amount of UUE is recoverable as per Annexure-8 of Section 36 of Supply Code-2014 and the Lease deed of the Ice Cream Parlour is dated 1-7-2022 and so as per this agreement the amount of Ice Cream Parlour is recoverable after

1-7-2022.

Action be taken in the above case as per Section

36.3.5 of the Supply Code-2014.

Sd/-

Deputy Chief Engineer/P & M Division (Appellate Authority)

P.S.T.C.L., Jalandhar.”

6. From