Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 662-663 2013
(Arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 32975-32976 of
2009)
Ms. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. … Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and Others. …
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
JUDGMENT
2. The facts very briefly are that the appellant owns a
sugar mill situated at Phagwara, and the respondent
no.1-Board is supplying electricity to the sugar mill.
In 1989, the appellant installed a TG Set of 3187.500
KW capacity to meet some of its electricity demand
and applied for approval of its TG Set to the
Page 1
2
respondent no.1. By memo dated 08.12.1992, the
Chief Engineer, Commercial of the respondent no.1
granted permission to the appellant for installation of
2 No. TG Sets subject to some conditions. On
09.12.1992, however, the Flying Squad, Jalandhar of
the respondent no.1 visited the sugar mill of the
appellant and checked the electricity connection at
the sugar mill. Pursuant to the report submitted by
the Flying Squad, the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Suburban), Phagwara of the respondent no.1 issued
a demand notice dated 10.12.1992 to the appellant
stating inter alia that the TG Set and stand-by load
had not been sanctioned by the respondent no.1 and
the appellant was liable for an excess unsanctioned
JUDGMENT
load of 4904.127 KW for load surcharge at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per KW, which worked out to
Rs.49,04,127/-.
3. The appellant made a representation to the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Suburban), Phagwara, and to the
Chief Engineer, Commercial of respondent no.1
against the demand of load surcharge of
Page 2
3
Rs.49,04,127/-. When there was no response from
the aforesaid two authorities of the respondent no.1,
the appellant filed a Writ Petition CWP No.370 of
1993 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh challenging the demand of load
surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/-. The Division Bench of
the High Court held in its order dated 30.03.1993
that the respondent no.1 could charge for the excess
load which was to be the sum of the rated capacities
of all the energy consuming apparatus in the
consumer’s installation, but from the order impugned
by the High Court or from the documents filed by the
respondent no.1 before the High Court along with its
written reply, there is nothing to show that the TG
JUDGMENT
Set having the capacity of 3187.5 KW was an energy
consuming apparatus. The Division Bench further
held in its order dated 30.03.1993 that for the
purpose of charging for the excess load, the load of
the stand-by machinery was to be excluded and,
therefore, the load to the extent of 2226.330 KW of
the stand-by apparatus in the order impugned before
Page 3
4
the High Court could not be included. For the
aforesaid reasons, the Division Bench quashed the
demand of load surcharge of Rs.49,04,127/- leaving it
to the respondent no.1 to pass afresh appropriate
order, if so advised, with liberty to the appellant to
challenge the same, if required.
4. Thereafter, by a fresh demand notice dated
01.06.1993, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Distribution),
Suburban Sub-Division, Phagwara, raised the very
same demand of Rs.49,04,127/- for the unauthorized
TG Set load of 3187.500 KW and stand-by load of
2226.330 KW totalling to 6520.155 KW at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per KW. The appellant filed a second Writ
Petition CWP No.7299 of 1993 challenging the
JUDGMENT
aforesaid demand. The learned Single Judge, who
heard and disposed of the writ petition, held in his
order dated 01.04.2009 that the finding of the
Division Bench of the High Court in earlier Writ
Petition CWP No.370 of 1993 that the stand-by load
of 2226.330 KW could not be included in the demand
for excess load was binding on the respondent no.1
Page 4
5
and hence the demand of excess load on account of
the stand-by load could not be raised again by the
respondent no.1. Regarding the connected load of
the TG Set, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court referred to the earlier order dated 21.08.2008
of the learned Single Judge in which it was recorded
that the learned counsel for the appellant had very
fairly stated that he would accept the decision of the
Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent
no.1 and as the Dispute Settlement Committee had
decided the matter against the appellant, the
addition on account of the load connected on the TG
Set could not be faulted with. Aggrieved, the
appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.304 of 2009
JUDGMENT
before the Division Bench of the High Court, but by
the impugned order dated 01.05.2009 the Division
Bench dismissed the appeal after holding that there
was no infirmity in the findings returned by the
learned Single Judge on the basis of the statement
made by the counsel for the appellant and the report
submitted by the Dispute Settlement Committee.
Page 5
6
The appellant filed a Review Application RA No.6 of
2009 before the Division Bench, but by the impugned
order dated 31.07.2009 the Division Bench dismissed
the Review Application. Aggrieved, the appellant has
filed this appeal by way of special leave under Article
136 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the
Division Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent
Appeal and the Review Application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
only ground on which the learned Single Judge in
CWP No.7299 of 1993 declined to quash the demand
for the excess connected load of the TG Set was that
the learned counsel for the appellant had agreed
before the learned Single Judge on 21.08.2008 that
JUDGMENT
he would accept the decision of the Dispute
Settlement Committee of the respondent no.1 on this
aspect of the matter. He submitted that a reading of
the order dated 21.08.2008 of the learned Single
Judge would show that the learned counsel for the
appellant had only agreed to accept the decision of
the Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent
Page 6
7
no.1 on the question whether with the aid of a device
called a bus coupler, inter-transferability of load
could be effected between the TG Set of the
appellant and the energy supplied by the respondent
no.1. He submitted that the learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, had not agreed before the
learned Single Judge on 21.08.2008 to accept the
decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of the
respondent no.1 with regard to the legality of the
demand for the excess load on account of the TG Set.
He further submitted that it will be clear from the
memo dated 08.12.1992 issued by the Chief
Engineer, Commercial, that the respondent no.1 had
permitted installation of the two TG Sets subject to
JUDGMENT
certain conditions and, therefore, the load of the TG
Set had been permitted/sanctioned by the competent
authority of the respondent no.1-Board and the
appellant could not be charged any load surcharge at
the additional rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW for 3187.500
KW connected load of the TG Set under the
Commercial Circular No.12 of 1989.
Page 7
8
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on
the other hand, submitted that the memo dated
08.12.1992 of the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the
respondent no.1 would show that the appellant was
permitted installation of 2 No. TG Sets subject to
certain conditions which were to be complied with by
the appellant and if the conditions were to be
complied with, the appellant was liable for
prosecution under Section 58 read with Section 43 of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the unauthorized
TG Sets were to be disconnected after giving 24
hours notice and were not allowed to be run till its
sanction is obtained from the competent authority of
the respondent no.1. He submitted that the
JUDGMENT
permission was only given for installation of TG Set
and not for the bus coupler and yet on 09.12.1992
when the Flying Squad of the respondent no.1
entered the sugar mill of the appellant, they found
that the TG Turbo Bus and the supply of the
respondent no.1 were electrically connected through
LT Bus Coupler and there was inter-transferability of
Page 8
9
load. He submitted that, therefore, the TG Set of the
appellant was found as unauthorized load for which
the appellant was liable for load surcharge at the
additional rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW. He submitted
that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court were, therefore, right in rejecting
the challenge of the appellant to the demand of
Rs.26,77,797/- towards load surcharge for the TG Set
at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per KW.
7. The first question that we have to decide is whether
on 21.08.2008 the learned counsel for the appellant
had agreed before the learned Single Judge to accept
the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee of
the respondent no.1 on the legality of the demand of
JUDGMENT
the unauthorized load of the TG Set and, therefore,
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court were right in taking a view that the
appellant was not entitled to challenge the demand
of load surcharge for the authorized load in respect of
the TG Set. The order dated 21.08.2008 of the
learned Single Judge in CWP No.7299 of 1993, which
Page 9
1
records the submission of the learned counsel of the
appellant, is extracted hereinbelow:
“Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
For the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Riar, Advocate
with Mr. DPS Kahlon, Advocate
for the Respondents.
Arguments in part heard.
The dispute in this petition primarily
relates to the question, whether with the aid of
a device called a bus coupler, inter-
transferability of load could be effected
between the captive generation apparatus of
the petitioner and the energy supplied by the
respondent-board. This is a disputed question
of fact.
At this stage learned counsel for the
petitioner has very fairly stated that he would
accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement
Committee of the respondent-board on this
aspect of the matter. Let the Dispute
Settlement Committee of the respondent-
board, after hearing both the parties, give an
opinion on the question whether the bus
coupler installed by the petitioner would
permit inter-transferability of the load between
the Turbo Generator Set of the petitioner and
the PSEB. Let representatives of both the
parties appear before the Dispute Settlement
Committee in this regard on 28.08.2008.
JUDGMENT
The matter is adjourned for two weeks
i.e. 8.9.2008. Copy of this order be given to
both the learned counsel under the signatures
of the Reader of this Court.
Page 10
1
Sd/-
Ajay Tewari
Judge
August 21, 2008.”
8. It will be clear from the aforesaid order dated
21.08.2008 that the learned Single Judge was of the
opinion that the dispute between the parties was on
the question whether with the aid of a device called a
bus coupler, inter-transferability of load could be
effected between the captive generation apparatus
of the appellant and the energy supplied by the
respondent no.1 and he was also of the opinion that
this dispute was on a question of fact and accordingly
learned counsel for the appellant had stated very
fairly that he would accept the decision of the
JUDGMENT
Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent
no.1 on this aspect of the matter. Hence, learned
counsel for the appellant had not agreed before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court that he would
accept the decision of the Dispute Settlement
Committee of the respondent no.1 on the legality of
the demand for the extra load on account of the TG
Page 11
1
Set. In fact, we find from the proceedings of the
Dispute Settlement Committee that the Dispute
Settlement Committee has also not decided on the
legality of the demand for the extra load on account
of the TG Set, but has only decided that with the aid
of a device called a bus coupler, inter-transferability
of load could be effected between the captive
generation apparatus of the appellant and the energy
supplied by the respondent no.1. In our considered
opinion, therefore, the legality of the demand for the
extra load on account of the TG Set should have been
decided by the learned Single Judge or the Division
Bench after taking into account the finding of the
Dispute Settlement Committee that with the aid of a
JUDGMENT
device called a bus coupler, inter-transferability of
load can be effected between the TG Set of the
appellant and the energy supplied by the respondent
no.1.
9. The next question that we have to decide is whether
the appellant is liable for the demand of load
surcharge for the unauthorized load in the notice
Page 12
1
dated 01.06.1993 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer
of the respondent no.1 keeping in view the finding of
the Dispute Settlement Committee of the respondent
No.1 that with the aid of bus coupler, inter-
transferability of load can be effected between the
captive generation apparatus of the appellant and
the energy supplied by the respondent no.1 board.
The justification of the demand made by the
respondent no.1 is given in the demand notice dated
01.06.1993 of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the
respondent no.1 in which demand for load surcharge
has been raised. Relevant extract from the demand
notice dated 01.06.1993 containing the justification
of the demand is extracted hereinbelow:
JUDGMENT
“1. Total load running on PSEB System as
checked by enforcement staff on 9.12.92:
1106.325 KW.
2. As agreed by your representative Sh.
Ramesh Chand who was present at the time
of spot checking, the TG Set load which also
includes the running stand bye load which
was taken on the basis of details of load
given to the Board as per A/A form along with
test reports submitted earlier and not on the
basis of R.C. Set Capacity: 3187.500 KW
Page 13
1
Stand by Load on T.G. Set: 2226.330 KW
Total: 6520.155 KW
In addition to above, as per checking of
enforcement staff on 9.2.92 and your
representative Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma
present at the time of checking the total load
was accepted so this load is unauthorized. It
is also made clear that under PSEB Circular
No.12/89 General Condition 14 and as per 8..
of Tariff Schedule, the standby load until
sanctioned by the Board is unauthorized.
Your attention is invited to your registered
letter No.2922 dt. 26.8.89 addressed to
Member Commercial, PSEB, Patiala in which
you had mentioned that new schedule of
tariff for Sugar Mills would tend to increase
difficulties and also admitted that keeping
this in view approximately Rs.35/40 lacs
required to be deposited for running the 4434
KW on T.G. Set, expenses of which are not
bearable. Keeping this in view the Board has
issued Special instruction to the sugar mills
vide Circular No.CC23/90 along with some
condition, the compliance of which is not
fulfilled by you. As a result of this a load of
4904.127 KW was declared unauthorized
after checking by the XEN Enforcement on
9.12.92. Keeping in view the unauthorized
load you are requested to deposit
Rs.49,04,127/- as per Board Circular No. CC
12/89 clause No.2 C 23/90 @ Rs.1000/- per
nd
KW. Since it is your 2 default you have
already deposited Rs.33,347/- on 23.5.91
towards first default.”
JUDGMENT
10. It is apparent from what has been extracted from
the demand notice dated 01.06.1993 of the Sub-
Page 14
1
Divisional Officer of the respondent no.1 that the
unauthorized load comprised the TG Set load
3187.500 KW and the standby load of 2226.330 KW.
So far as the standby load of 2226.330 KW is
concerned, the demand for unauthorized load has
been set aside by the learned Single Judge by the
order dated 01.04.2009 in CWP No.7299 of 1993 and
the order dated 01.04.2009 has not been challenged
by the respondents either before the Division Bench
of the High Court or before this Court. In fact, we find
that the Sub-Divisional Officer of the respondent no.1
has issued a fresh demand notice dated 12.06.2009
to the appellant pursuant to the order dated
01.04.2009 of the learned Single Judge in CWP
JUDGMENT
No.7299 of 1993 restricting the demand of
Rs.26,77,797/- for the unauthorized load on account
of the TG Set. Hence, we are to examine whether the
reasons given in the demand notice dated
01.06.1993 of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the
respondent no.1 for the unauthorized load of the TG
Set are legal.
Page 15
1
11. From the aforesaid extract of the demand notice
dated 01.06.1993 of the Sub-Divisional Officer of the
respondent no.1, we find that the reason for the demand
for unauthorized load for the TG Set is that respondent
No.1- Board has issued special instruction to sugar mills
vide Circular No.CC23/90 along with some conditions,
compliance of which have not been fulfilled by the
appellant and as a result the load on account of TG Set
was declared unauthorized after checking by XEN
Enforcement on 09.12.1992. We have examined the
Circular No.CC 23/90 and we find that by the said Circular
issued by the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the
respondent No.1, all concerned were informed that
respondent no.1 has decided to regularize the load of the
JUDGMENT
sugar mills fed from TG Sets after recovering ACD worked
out according to the capacity of TG Sets. In para 3 of the
Circular, the working details for regularizing load of sugar
mills from the supply of respondent no.1-Board and TG
Sets have been given and at the end of the Circular it is
mentioned that necessary action for regularizing total load
of the sugar mills may be taken accordingly. Pursuant to
Page 16
1
the said Circular, the appellant applied for regularization
of load of two TG Sets and by memo dated 08.12.1992
issued by the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the
respondent no.1, the appellant was permitted to install
two TG Sets subject to certain conditions. The memo
dated 08.12.1992 issued by the Chief Engineer,
Commercial of the respondent no.1 is extracted
hereinbelow:
“PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD
From
The Chief Engineer / Commercial,
Tariff & Billing Directorate, PSEB,
The Mall, Patiala 147001
To,
M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
Sugar Divn. G.T. Road,
Phagwara (Pb.)
JUDGMENT
Memo No.64192/Com/54/Indl./Jall.
Dated 8.12.92
Sub: Permission for installation of 2 no. TG Sets of
3730 KVA & 500 KVA capacity.
Reference your letter regarding permission for
installation of 2 No. TG Sets.
You are hereby permitted to install 2 No. TG sets
of 3750 KVA Capacity of make Jyoti Vadodars, 420
Volts of 1500 RPM KVA Tg Set of Crompton make
Page 17
1
400 volts & 375 RPM, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. All relevant provisions of the I.E. Rules, 1956
shall be complied with by you and test report
of the installation shall be furnished.
ii. That the Generating set will be operated
whenever called upon to do so by the Pb.
State Elecy. Board for meeting your demand
or for giving suitable relief to the Board’s
system by meeting the demand of the other
consumers also, depending upon the
prevailing situation.
iii. Full proof arrangements to be approved by
SE/DS concerned shall be provided to avoid
mixing of Board’s supply with that to be
generated by the generating sets. It shall be
ensured that the nature of the PSEB supply is
isolated ruing change over to TG sets supply.
iv. That after obtaining receipts of this
permission you will give notice not less than
7 (seven) days to the concerned District
Magistrate in terms of Section 30 of the
Indian Elecy. Act, 1910 intimating the nature
and purpose of supply.
JUDGMENT
v. That the separate notice of not less than 7
(days) shall also be given to Chief Electrical
Inspector to Govt. Punjab as laid down in
Section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Notice shall also be accompanied by the
following documents:-
a. Particulars of the Electrical installation
and plan thereof.
b. A copy of the notice sent to the District
Magistrate.
Page 18
1
c. An attested copy of the consent
received from the Punjab State Electy.
Board.
d. Original Challan of the prescribed
inspection fee under the following Head
of Account;
-043 – Taxes and Duties on Electricity
fee under the Indian Electricity Rules.”
e. Test report from Licensed Wiring
Contractor in token of his having carried
out the job and tested the installation for
safety.
f. A single line key diagram indicating the
arrangement of connecting the generator
installation to the existing electrical
installation.
vi. That suitable energy meter shall be installed
to comply with the requirement of Rule-6 of
Punjab Electricity Duty Rules 1958. The
meter shall be got tested from the nearest
PSEB laboratory.
JUDGMENT
vii. That in case you fail to comply with the
above provision you shall make yourself
liable for prosecution under Section 58 read
with Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act,
1910. The unauthorized T.G. Sets shall be
disconnected after giving 24 hours notice and
shall not be allowed to run till its sanction is
obtained from the competent authority. In
case you do not disconnect the TG Sets or
apply for regularization of TG Sets your
Page 19
2
connection shall be disconnected after giving
24 hours notice in writing for contravening
the provisions of the said Act and Clause 19
of the PSEB, abridged conditions of supply.
Supply in such cases shall not be restored
unless you disconnect the TG Sets and
furnish test report for sanction electric
installation or comply with the above
provisions.”
Thus, on 09.12.1992 when the Flying Squad, Jalandhar, of
respondent no.1 visited the sugar mill of the appellant, the
Chief Engineer, Commercial of respondent no.1 had
already permitted installation of TG Sets in the sugar mill
of the appellant. If the appellant had refused to comply
with the conditions mentioned in the Circular No.CC 23/90
for regularization of the load of the sugar mill fed from the
TG Sets, the Chief Engineer, Commercial, would not have
JUDGMENT
granted such permission in the memo dated 08.12.1992.
Alternatively, even if the appellant had refused to comply
with some conditions in the Circular No.CC 23/90, the
Chief Engineer, Commercial did not consider such refusal
to disentitle the appellant for regularization of the
installation of the TG Set and permitted the installation of
the TG Sets by the memo dated 08.12.1992.
Page 20
2
12. We further find from the aforesaid extract from the
demand notice dated 01.06.1993 that for the
unauthorized load, a demand has been made at the rate
of Rs.1,000/- per KW in accordance with Clause 8-b of the
Schedule of Tariff applicable to the sugar mill of the
appellant as notified in the Commercial Circular No.12/89.
Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff as notified in the
Commercial Circular no.12/89 is extracted hereinbelow:
“SCHEDULE OF TARIFF:
i. Schedule L.S. – Large Industrial Power
Supply 1 to 7.
8. ……………..
‘8-b. If the connected load of a consumer
exceeds the sanctioned connected load, the
excess load shall be unauthorized load. Such
excess of the connected load shall be
charged load surcharge at an additional rate
of Rs.1000/- per KW for each subsequent
default.”
JUDGMENT
It will be clear from Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff
that if the connected load of a consumer exceeds the
sanctioned connected load, the excess load shall be
unauthorized load and such excess connected load shall
be charged at additional rate of Rs.1000/- per KW for each
Page 21
2
subsequent default. If, therefore, any load is sanctioned
by the appropriate authority of respondent no.1-Board,
such load cannot be held to be unauthorized load or
excess load liable to surcharge at the rate of Rs.1000/- per
KW. As we have already found, on 08.12.1992, the Chief
Engineer, Commercial, has sanctioned or permitted or
regularized the installation of two TG Sets and hence the
load of 3187.500 KW of the TG Set detected on
19.12.1992 was a sanctioned load and was not an
unauthorized load for which the appellant can be charged
load surcharge at the rate of Rs.1000/- per KW under
Clause 8-b of the Schedule of Tariff.
13. Once we hold that the load of the TG Sets was
sanctioned and authorized, the appellant could not be held
JUDGMENT
liable for load surcharge under clause 8-b of the Schedule
of Tariff for the load of the TG Set, even if by the aid of
bus coupler, inter-transferability of load could be effected
between the TG Set of the appellant and the energy
supplied by the respondent no.1-Board. For the
consumption of energy from the supply of the respondent
no.1, the appellant was liable for every unit of energy
Page 22
2
consumed to the respondent no.1. For demand of energy,
the appellant being a sugar mill was also liable for
demand charges with minimum contract demand of not
less than the capacity of the distribution transformer(s)
installed by the appellant and not 60% of the connected
load as stated in the Commercial Circular Nos.12/89 and
23/90. What the learned Single Judge and Division Bench
of the High Court failed to appreciate is that the appellant
was separately liable for energy charges and demand
charges to the respondent no.1 for consumption of energy
and demand of energy respectively under the Schedule of
Tariff and the levy of load surcharge at the additional rate
of Rs.1000/- per KW was only meant for a load of the
consumer which was unauthorized or not sanctioned and if
JUDGMENT
a particular load of a consumer is sanctioned or
authorized, load surcharge at additional rate of Rs.1000/-
per KW could not be levied under Clause 8-b of the
Schedule of Tariff.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
submitted that the permission to install the TG Sets
granted by the memo dated 08.12.1992 by the Chief
Page 23
2
Engineer, Commercial of the respondent no.1 was subject
to various conditions mentioned in the memo dated
08.12.1992 and these conditions have not been fulfilled by
the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents is
right that since the permission to install the TG Sets was
granted by the memo dated 08.12.1992 subject to various
conditions, the load of the TG Sets installed could not be
said to be sanctioned or authorized if the conditions in the
memo dated 08.12.1992 were not fulfilled. It was,
therefore, open to the respondents to treat the load of the
TG Set as unauthorized on the ground that the conditions
in the memo dated 08.12.1992 permitting the installation
of the TG Sets were not fulfilled. But neither in the first
demand notice dated 10.12.1992 nor in the second
JUDGMENT
demand notice dated 01.06.1993 of the Sub-Divisional
Officer of the respondent no.1 raising the demand for
unauthorized load for the TG Set, there is any mention
that the demand for unauthorized load was being raised
because the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions
mentioned in the memo dated 08.12.1992 of the Chief
Engineer, Commercial of the respondent no.1. In the
Page 24
2
demand notice dated 10.12.1992 of the Sub-Divisional
Officer of the respondent no.1, the only reason given for
raising the demand for unauthorized load was that the TG
Set load “has not yet been sanctioned by the Board”.
After the High Court quashed the first demand notice
dated 10.12.1992 in CWP No.370 of 1993, leaving it to the
respondent no.1 to pass afresh an appropriate order, the
Sub-Divisional Officer issued the second demand notice
dated 01.06.1993, but in this lengthy second demand
notice also it has not been stated that the demand for
unauthorized load for the TG Set was being made because
the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in
the memo dated 08.12.1992 of the Chief Engineer,
Commercial of the respondent no.1. In fact, in the two
JUDGMENT
demand notices dated 10.12.192 and 01.06.1993 no
reference at all has been made to the memo dated
08.12.1002 of the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the
respondent no.1.
15. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The
impugned orders of the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the
Page 25
2
demand raised against the appellant in the demand notice
dated 01.06.1993 and the demand notice dated
12.06.2009 for unauthorized load of the TG Set is
quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
..……………..……………………….J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
...…………..………………………..J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
New Delhi,
January 23, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Page 26