IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 29.10.2025 M/s Dashmesh Rice Mills ...Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate, with Mr. Aksshay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

…

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing final order of assessment dated 03.05.2023, Annexure P-5, issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”), as also order dated 14.06.2024, Annexure P-6, whereby an appeal filed by petitioner, has been dismissed under Section 127 of the Act. Petitioner has also sought quashing of letter dated 09.07.2024, Annexure P-7, whereby it has been called upon to deposit the balance assessed amount.

2. Relevant facts for the disposal of the writ petition are that petitioner is a partnership firm and is running a rice sheller. Petitioner has an electricity connection under MS category, with sanctioned load of 91.95 KW, and contract demand of 100 KVA. Notices dated 23.01.2023 and 22.02.2023, Annexures PARDEEP NAUTIPYA-L1 and P-2, respectively, were issued to the petitioner by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) intimating that petitioner is drawing excess load, which should either be removed or regularized within 15 days, otherwise action will be taken as per the rules and guidelines. A joint checking of petitioner’s premises was conducted on 27.03.2023, and on the basis of a report, Annexure P-3, petitioner was issued a provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act, on 29.03.2023, Annexure P-4. Petitioner submitted objections and by impugned order, Annexure P-5, objections were rejected, and final order was passed assessing charges of Rs.3,42,672/-, which the petitioner was called to deposit within 30 days. Petitioner filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide impugned order, Annexure P-6.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondents have failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Act. He has inter alia contended that petitioner was neither provided with an effective opportunity of hearing, nor objections submitted by him were dealt with by the respondents while passing the final order of assessment, Annexure P-5. Counsel emphasizes that a statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, upon deposit of 50% of the demanded amount, was rejected without considering the arguments raised by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has made a reference to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents to urge that as petitioner had exceeded the sanctioned contract demand, he was liable to pay surcharge at the rate of Rs.750 KVA per month on excess demand. She has made a PARDEEP NAUTIrYeALference to Regulation 36.1.3 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2014, to support her stand. She states that respondents had issued two prior notices to the petitioner before initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the Act, and after considering the objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional order, final order of assessment, Annexure P-5, was passed.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties.

6. In order to test the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to notice the final order of assessment, Annexure P-5. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:-

“Kindly refer to this office memo No. 590 dated

29/03/2023 vide which a notice of provisional order of assessment was sent to you.

2. You were given opportunity to file objection and or were afforded reasonable opportunity to personal hearing.

3, After considering the objection and/or submission ma