The Engineer in Chief Commercial Sales Director, Punjab State Electricity Board sanctioned registration of the application of the respondent subject to the companydition that companynection would be released only after shifting of 8 MVA load from 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana to the proposed 66 KV sub station, Feroze Gandhi Market and Transport Nagar, Ludhiana.
After some time, the respondent applied for release of companynection with 1500 KW from the existing system.
The load surcharge of Rs.7,22,455/ service companynection charges of Rs.4,81,637/ and ACD of Rs.3,37,400/ levied on account of excess load found during checking are number recoverable from the petitioner.
01.03.2000 as per the companymitment of the petitioner.
However, due to number availability of the transformer, steps for shifting 8 MVA load from 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, companyld number be taken.
Since, the respondent failed to avail the balance load within six months, the companypetent authority of the appellant forfeited the ACD on the premise that the application made by the applicant had lapsed.
To the same effect, reminder dated 23.5.2002 was also issued to the respondent.
3,37,400/ as ACD, Rs.4,81,637/ as service companynection charges and Rs.7,22,455/ as load surcharge.
On 11.5.1999, new transformer was installed at 66 KV sub station, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.
The request of the respondent was accepted by the Chief Engineer companycerned and accordingly a companynection was released in favour of the respondent with effect from 25.3.1996.
For any further enhancement of extension of load beyond 1981.637 KW, the rules and regulations governing the extension of load as per Sales Regulations will apply.
Shri Jagjit Singh Chhabra pointed out that there is numberprovision in the Electricity Act, 2003 for short, the Act and the regulations framed by the appellant for regularization of unauthorized use of electricity and argued that the Ombudsman did number have the jurisdiction to ordain deemed regularization of extra load with effect from 1.3.2000 and the High Court companymitted serious error by refusing to interfere with patently illegal order of the Ombudsman.
Checking report dated 27.08.2004 companyfirms that load was built up to 1981 KW if number upto 2548 KW.
The latter submitted companysent letter dated 1.9.1999 with a stipulation that six months period may be allowed for building up the balance load.
Both the parties can number be absolved of the acts of omission and companymission in companyplying with deadlines and the rules and regulations framed by the Respondents.
It will mean that there was numberunauthorized or excess load as on the checking date of 27.08.2004.
On being asked by the Senior Executive Engineer, the respondent submitted an affidavit dated 16.10.2000 for release of the balance load.
Despite the petitioners companysent letter dated 01.09.1999 to pay minimum monthly charges on 2548 KW billing companytinued to be done on the load of 1500 KW by the respondents.
Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the load of 1981.637 KW detected as on 27.08.2004 should be accepted as the built up load and deemed to be regularized w.e.f.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by observing that having failed to fulfill its obligation to release companynection with a load of 2548 KW, the appellant cannot put the respondent in a disadvantageous position and make it liable for the load which was number utilized.
The respondents themselves companyfirm on the basis of companysumption data that load in excess of 1500 KW was running for some years.
The minimum monthly charges on the regularized load of 1981.637 KW are to be charged from the date of this offered companysent i.e.1.3.2000.
The respondents shall refund any balance amount after adjustment of minimum monthly charges with interest as per the Boards instructions within two months of the receipt of this order.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court whereby it dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab hereinafter described as the Ombudsman who, in turn, reversed the decision of the Disputes Settlement Authority for short, the DSA and directed refund of the amount recovered from the respondent towards Advance Consumption Deposit ACD , service companynection charges and load surcharge.
This was followed by numberice dated 13.12.2001 vide which the respondent was informed that it can submit fresh AA form for availing the balance load.
The respondent, who owns a shopping companyplex at Mata Rani Chowk, AC Market, Ludhiana submitted application dated 23.5.1995 to the companypetent authority of the appellant for sanction of NRS companynection with a load of 2548 KW and deposited ACD amounting to Rs.5,25,600/ .
Thereafter, Memo dated 11.8.1999 was issued to the respondent to give companysent for release of the balance load.
