IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.03.2025 M/s. Neelgiri Steels Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus PSPCL and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate for respondent No.4.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-8), passed by the respondent No.4- Ombudsman, Electricity Punjab, in appeal No.18 of 2016, and demand notice dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure P-2), through which the demand of Rs.8,34,633/-

was raised for a period of three years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to throw challenge to the demand notice, and the order (supra), passed by the Ombudsman, submits that the demand notice has been raised in contravention of the Regulation 21.4 (g) (1) of the Supply Code, as well as in contravention of Regulation 104.1, 102.10 and 102.11 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2011 (for short ‘the ESIM’) , therefore, the said demand is totally illegal, whereas, if at all, there is an issue regarding application of a wrong multiplier, the distribution licencee can only raise a demand within the period of six months from the date of checking.

3. The facts, qua which, there is no wrangle among the parties to the lis, are as under; i) the energy record of the petitioner was checked on dated 28.09.2015, by the authorities concerned, and it was found that the energy bill was being raised to the petitioner, by applying a wrong multiplier. As per the checking, it was found that the connection of the petitioner is CT/PT with 150/5 MP, and the meter is having 100/5 MP, and as per the net M.F. (multiplier factor), which comes to 1.5, whereas, as per the record from 7/2012, the bill was prepared by applying net M.F. of 0.66, and therefore, considering the error, the account was ordered to be overhauled, from the date when the error was first occurred, i.e. dated 07/2012, and upto dated 08/2015, and the bill was accordingly raised to the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, draws the attention of this Court towards the Regulation 104.1 of the ESIM, which prescribes the checking schedule and imposes an obligation upon the distribution licencee, to check the supply connections/meter, atleast once in every six months, to submit that the checking was not done since the last six months, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the asked for amount, beyond six months, in case there was any error. He further submits that the error which has occurred, is on the part of the distribution licencee, and the petitioner cannot be held for their default, and be asked to pay such a huge amount, that too after expiry of six months. Furthermore, he also submits that all the efforts were required to be made by the distribution licencee, to install the meter, having the CTs of the same current ratio, so as to eliminate the wrong multiplying factor, and the multiplying factor is required to be indicated in red ink, and for that, he has placed reliance upon Regulation

102.10 and 102.11 of the ESIM. Finally, he has placed reliance upon the Regulation 21.4 (g), which deals with overhauling of the consumer accounts, to submit that even the time limit prescribed therein, is six months, for correction of the overhauling of the consumer accounts.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRIBUTION LICENCEE

5. Learned counsel for the distribution licencee submits that the Regulations, which are referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has no applicability at all, as it is neither the case of any defect in the meter, nor the demand has been raised upon the meter checking. He further submits that the said error has occurred purely on account of applying of wrong multiplier, at the