2,17,000/ over and above the amount alread deposited was made on 12.2.1999 on the basis that the respondent had number deposited the requisite amount in terms of the Circular dated 4.5.1995 and clarificatory Circular dated 6.2.1996.
The background facts in a nutshell are as under The respondent applied to the Board for a new electric L.S. large supply companynection on 10.3.1992 for running an induction furance.
But the authorities of the Board rejected the stand and held that the respondent was liable to make the deposit.
A writ application was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court interalia raising the following question for adjudication of the High Court whether the representation made by petitioner can summarily be rejected without affording opportunity of hearing?
He desposited a sum of Rs.
41/95 dated 4.5.1995 decided to recover one time charge from the Large Supply companysumers demanding companytract demand higher than 60 of the companynected load and to charge monthly minimum charge on the companynected load basis instead of Contract Demand basis.
The Board in terms of its Circular CC No.
The respondent made a representation to the authorities saying that there was numberliability for liquidating the demand.
An additional demand of Rs.
2, 01,000/ as security on the same day and his application was registered after all the formalities were companypleted.
Arijit Pasayat, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the demand made by the Punjab State Electricity Board in short the Board for a sum of Rs 2,17,000/ was impermissible.
