Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 649 (PNJ)

Shiv Durga Alloys Private Limited v. P. S. E. B.

2002-07-09

KIRAN ANAND LALL, S.S.NIJJAR

body2002
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.9.2001, Annexure P-26 passed by the Additional Superintending Engineer/Operation, Estate Division (Khas), Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana whereby he has ruled that fresh Advance Consumption deposit be got deposited from the petitioner-Company for change of name, and the demand notice No. 1255 dated 23.11.2001, copy Annexure P-29 vide which the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 31,91,500/- as fresh Advance Consumption Deposit/Security (ACD) on account of alleged change of consumer. 2. Mr. Mahajan has vehemently argued that although the initial connection has been released in the name of Malinder Singh, who had made the initial application on 9.8.1989, it should be treated to have been released to M/s. Sharomani Alloys and Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the M/s. Sharomani Allays"). It is submitted that the entire liability has always been cleared by the aforesaid company. Malinder Singh was only the special power of attorney of the Company. He further relies on the fact that Malinder Singh resigned from the Company on 30.6.1990. The connection was actually released on 15.7.1991. According to Mr. Mahajan, this fact alone is sufficient to indicate that M/s. Sharomani Allays was the consumer all along. The present petitioner is the successor of M/s. Sharomani Allays. Therefore, a decision was taken to make an application for change of the name of the consumer. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel. 4. The undisputed facts are that the application for the release of the electricity connection was made by Malinder Singh in his personal name on 9.8.1989. Actually the application was submitted on 12.6.1990. Malinder Singh allegedly resigned on 30.6.1990. However, it has been pointed out by the respondents in the written statement that in the application dated 2.6.1990, Malinder Singh had shown himself as the owner of the premises. The application was signed by Malinder Singh. It was not mentioned in the application that the connection was applied for or on behalf of M/s. Sharomani Allays. Malinder Singh had deposited the amount of Rs. 2,01,500/- by receipt No. 304/27742 dated 12.6.1990 in his individual name and not in the name of the Company. The demand notice was also issued in the name of Malinder Singh son of Ajit Singh in his personal capacity vide demand notice No. 2353 dated 27.12.1990. Malinder Singh had deposited the amount of Rs. 2,01,500/- by receipt No. 304/27742 dated 12.6.1990 in his individual name and not in the name of the Company. The demand notice was also issued in the name of Malinder Singh son of Ajit Singh in his personal capacity vide demand notice No. 2353 dated 27.12.1990. Malinder Singh deposited the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- vide different demand drafts. He has not stated that the payment is being made on behalf of the Company, though the application was on the letter pad of the Company. The application-cum-agreement form was executed between the Board and Malinder Singh. The application was signed by Malinder Singh in his individual capacity and not for or on behalf of M/s. Sharomani Allays. Even the Chief Electrical Inspection fee was deposited in the name of Malinder Singh son of Ajit Singh vide challan dated 29.5.1999. The service connection order was issued in the name of Malinder Singh and it was released in his individual capacity. From the very beginning, the bills were being issued and being paid in the name of Malinder Singh. Even though, Malinder Singh had resigned from the Company on 30.6.1990, M/s. Sharomani Alloys did not raise any objection at any stage. In the year 1994, the Company applied for change of connection in its name. An affidavit of Malinder Singh was also attached and he had applied for the power connection for and on behalf of the Company. The case was sent to the Chief Engineer Commercial, Patiala for the change of name of the consumer from Malinder Singh to M/s. Sharomani Alloys. By order dated 1.4.1997, the Chief Engineer Commercial had given approval for the change of name of consumer on the condition that the new consumer will be required to deposit the difference of advance consumption deposit/security as per the current rates. This order has been attached with the written statement, Annexure P-3. The decision dated 1.4.1997 was not challenged by M/s. Sharomani Alloys. Thereafter, Malinder Singh made a request either to change the connection in the name of the Company or the same be disconnected. This letter was written by Malinder Singh on 8.9.2001. Consequently, a letter was written on 12.9.2001 to the present petitioners directing them to take necessary action. Now the present application had been made for change of the connection in the name of the present petitioners on 24.9.2001. This letter was written by Malinder Singh on 8.9.2001. Consequently, a letter was written on 12.9.2001 to the present petitioners directing them to take necessary action. Now the present application had been made for change of the connection in the name of the present petitioners on 24.9.2001. 5. Mr. Mahajan had relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and another, 1995(2) Supreme Court Cases 648 to submit that the petitioner falls within the definition of the consumer as given in Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act. The aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner undisputedly falls within the definition of consumer. The question is as to from what date he falls within the definition. A perusal of the facts narrated above would clearly show that M/s. Sharomani Alloys had made efforts for changing the name of the consumer from the personal name of Malinder Singh to the name of the Company. This request of the M/s. Sharomani Alloys was accepted on the condition that the new consumer will be required to deposit the difference of advance consumption deposit/security as per the current rates. This application for change of name of the consumer is a clear admission by the predecessor of the present petitioner that the original consumer was Malinder Singh and not M/s. Sharomani Alloys. Thereafter, there has been change in the Director of the Company. Even the name of the Company has been changed from M/s. Sharomani Alloys to Shiv Durga Alloys Private Limited. The present petitioner cannot, therefore, be said to be in a better position than its predecessor, M/s. Sharomani Alloys. The petitioner has been correctly treated as a new consumer, who will have to deposit the current fees. 6. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders, Annexures P-26 and P-29. This writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.