D. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Learned counsel Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. This petition has been preferred challenging the legality of demand of wheeling charges (as defined under Section 2 (72) read with Section 62 of the Electricity act,2 003) raised by the respondents vide demand notice dated 18th January, 2006 as well as 5th June, 2006 and bills for the month of May,2005 to May,2006. Wheeling charges are demanded for the reason that petitioner is using distribution system of respondent for conveyance of electricity. Electricity is transmitted from Captive Power Plant (hereinafter referred to as "cpp") of petitioner to the factory premises of petitioner through Bus Bars. Respondent issued impugned notices and bill for payment of Wheeling Charges, as Bus Bars are part and parcel of the distribution system and associated facilities of transmission licensee or distribution licensee (. e. respondent No. 2) transmission line of 220 KV from Icchapur substation to sachin sub-station is as under: ( 2 ) THE matter in issue before this court is the ownership of "220 KV Bus Bar" between points x and y in the map at page 151 (Annexure-III to the Affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioner), which is of a length of about 400 meters and is connected to the 220 KV transmission line leading to Icchapur sub-station of respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "getco") on the one side and Sachin Sub-station also of GETCO on the other side. ( 3 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel mr. K. S. Nanavati for the petitioners submitted that the Bus Bar of 400 meters between points x and y (as per map at page-151-Annexure III of the Affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioner) is owned, operated and maintained by the petitioners the Bus Bar is part of the distribution system of the petitioners. The petitioners have incurred expenditure of a sum of Rs. 54 crores for laying down the Bus Bars and it is also submitted that the Bus Bar is independent, separate and severable from 220 KV line leading to Icchapur Sub-station on one side and Sachin sub-station on the other side. The petitioners have incurred expenditure of a sum of Rs. 54 crores for laying down the Bus Bars and it is also submitted that the Bus Bar is independent, separate and severable from 220 KV line leading to Icchapur Sub-station on one side and Sachin sub-station on the other side. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that wheeling charges in respect of powers generated by the petitioners company transmitted from captive Power Plants of the petitioners through 220 KV Bus Bar is not leviable because Bus Bar line is owned and maintained by the petitioners and, therefore, wheeling charges for transmission of electricity through these Bus Bar is not leviable by the respondents. Wheeling charges is leviable only if the distribution system of the respondent company is used. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are manufacturing electricity for their Captive consumption. After manufacturing of the electricity, it is brought to the factory premises through these Bus Bars. As stated hereinabove, Bub-Bars have been constructed by the petitioners and, therefore, when such manufactured electricity is transmitted through the Bus Bar, distribution system of the respondent company is not at all used and, therefore, wheeling charges are not leviable. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also argued at length and pointed out that the distribution system refers to system of wires and associated facilities between "delivery points on the transmission line" and "point of connection to the installation of the consumers". It is further submitted that looking to the plan at page No. 151, point of connection to the installation of the petitioners is A2 and B1. Thus, meters are at point No. A2 and Bl. These two points are also known as "point of delivery". They are also known as "point of connection". The distribution network between these two points namely A2 and B1 within the complex of the petitioners, is not the distribution system of the respondents and, therefore, demand of wheeling charges under sub-clause 2 (76) read with section 62 of the Electricity act,2003 is not payable. They are also known as "point of connection". The distribution network between these two points namely A2 and B1 within the complex of the petitioners, is not the distribution system of the respondents and, therefore, demand of wheeling charges under sub-clause 2 (76) read with section 62 of the Electricity act,2003 is not payable. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Captive power Policy dated 21st December, 1998 granted by Gujarat Electricity Board (Annexure "h" to the memo of the petition), as per para-8 thereof, "wheeling of power means Wheeling of electrical power from CPP of an industrial company to the other industrial units within the same company or to any / or industrial units of its group companies. " It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners is transmitting or conveying power from its own Captive Power Plants to its own manufacturing within the complex using the assets (Bus Bars) admittedly belonging to the petitioners and, therefore, such transmission is not amounting to wheeling of power as defined by Gujarat Electricity Board vide its commercial circular relating to Captive power Plants. The petitioners are not using distribution network of the respondent company for conveyance of power from CPP to factory premises of the petitioners, therefore, wheeling charges are not leviable. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid facts, the demand of wheeling charges deserves to be quashed and set aside as the said demand is without authority of law. ( 8 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. Raju ramchandran on behalf of the respondents submitted that the entire transmission line from Icchapur sub-station to Sachin sub-station inclusive of 220 KV Bus Bar is owned, operated and maintained by the respondents. It is an integral part of the integrated grid/transmission system of getco- respondent No. 2. The electricity flows in an un-interrupted manner from icchapur sub-station to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa. ( 9 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the said 22 0 KV line is used for conveyance of electricity in addition to transfer of Essar s electricity. There are several other types of powers transmitted through this 220 KV line. The electricity flows in an un-interrupted manner from icchapur sub-station to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa. ( 9 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the said 22 0 KV line is used for conveyance of electricity in addition to transfer of Essar s electricity. There are several other types of powers transmitted through this 220 KV line. The line being integrated, there is no question of petitioners claiming the ownership of or right to operate and maintain any part of the integrated line, namely, the 400 meters Bus Bar on their own. ( 10 ) IT is further submitted that as per provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as per the agreement between the petitioners and respondents, especially clause 6 of the Agreement dated 1st December, 1989, bus Bars belongs to the present respondents. The ownership of the respondent is not defeated merely by the payment of cost of service line. It is submitted that Bus Bar forms an integrated part of 220 KV line for transmission of power from Icchapur sub-station to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa. There cannot be any question of ownership being claimed by the petitioners restricted to part of 220 KV line. e. restricted to Bus bar, the total line is approximately 48 KMs (48,000 meters) line whereas length of Bus bars is only 400 meters. Where the whole line of 48 KMs belongs to the respondents, some part of the whole line (Bus Bars) of length of 400 meters cannot be said to be belonging to the petitioners because this is not severable from 220 KV line of 48 meters length. Learned counsel for the respondent has also taken this Court to the various paras of the petitions, affidavit-in reply and affidavit-in rejoinder, etc. as well as attention has also been drawn of this Court to the letter dated 21st February,2005 written by chief Engineer of Government of India, central Electricity Authority, New Delh. Learned counsel has also relied upon several decisions, which are referred hereinafter and pointed out that the service line belongs to the respondents, despite the cost is paid by the petitioners, as per the provisions of the act, 2003 as well as per clause 6 of the agreement dated 1st December, 1989 and also as per subsequent agreement between the petitioners and the respondents. Once the ownership is vested in the respondents for the service line, whenever the service line is used for conveyance of electricity, the wheeling charges are leviable and there is no illegality committed by the respondents in demanding Wheeling charges from the petitioners as they are using the service line belonging to the respondents. ( 11 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as map of transmission of electricity at page-151 of the memo of the petition (Annexure-III to the affidavit-in rejoinder) and the provisions of the law, in my opinion, the petitioners are liable to make the payment of Wheeling charges for transmission of electricity for the following facts and reasons : [a] The Electricity Act,2003 ; necessary provisions of law, which has been read and re-read by both the counsels, are as under: section 2 Definitions : 2 (17) "distribution licensee" means a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply; 2 (19) "distribution system" means the system of wires and associated facilities between the delivery points on the transmission lines or the generating station connection and the point of connection to the installation of the consumers; 2 (61) "service-line" means any electric supply-line through which electricity is, or is intended to be, supplied- (a) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the distribution Licensee s premises; or (b) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on continuous premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main; 2 (72) "transmission lines" means all high pressure cable and overhead lines (not being an essential part of the distribution system of a licensee) transmitting electricity from a generating station to another generating station or a substation, together with any step-up and step-down transformers, switch-gear and other works necessary to and used for the control of such cables or overhead lines, and such buildings or part thereof as may be required to accommodate such transformers, switch-gear and other works. 2 (76) "wheeling" means the operation whereby the distribution system and associated facilities of transmission licensee or distribution licensee, as the case may be, are used by another person for the conveyance of electricity on payment of charges to be determined under section 62; section 62 : Determination of tariff.- (1) the Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for - (a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee: provided that the Appropriate commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable prices of electricity; (b) transmission of electricity;- (c) wheeling of electricity; (d) retail sale of electricity: provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate commission may, for promoting competition among distribution licensees, fix only minimum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to furnish separate details, as may be specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution for determination of tariff. (3) The Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer s load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is required. (4) No tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended, more frequently than once in any financial year, except in respect of any changes expressly permitted under the terms of any fuel surcharge formula as may be specified. (5) The Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to comply with such procedure as may be specified for calculating the expected revenues from the tariff and charges which he or it is permitted to recover. (5) The Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to comply with such procedure as may be specified for calculating the expected revenues from the tariff and charges which he or it is permitted to recover. (6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recovered by the person who has paid such price of charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee. " [b] Severability of Bus Bar (400 meters) to 220 KV line of 48 KMs. used for transmission of electricity from Icchapur sub station to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa. 48 KMs long 220 KV line is from icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station. After approximately 18 kms. from Icchapur sub-station bus-bar comes. It is 400 meters length. Thereafter again length of 220 KV line is approximately 3 0 km upto Sachin sub-station. Thus, bus bar is 1% part of running, 48 KMs. long 220 KV line. Looking to the facts of the present case and as stated hereinabove, there are other transfer of powers also over and above the transfer/transmission of power from captive Power Plant to Essar Steel Limited. Power comes from Icchapur sub-station is going to the Essar Steel Limited. Likewise, power comes from Sachin substation is also given to the petitioners. These two substations are also joined with further substations. Power which is not consumed by essar Steel Limited, is transmitted through this 220 KV line from Icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station and from Sachin substation to Icchapur sub-station. Thus, this 220 KV line is used like a high-way for transfer of electricity from one substation to another sub-station. If Essar Steel Limited consumes some electricity, it is recorded at regular interval of 30 minutes, but what is not consumed will go ahead. The disputed bus Bar is having a length of only 400 meters. It is a very small part of 220 KV line. It is approximately less than 1% of the length of the total 220 KV line. It is an integrated transmission system. Partly it cannot belong to one and partly to another. There cannot be two separate ownerships for 1% of the length of 220 KV line and for remaining 99% of the 220 KV line. It is approximately less than 1% of the length of the total 220 KV line. It is an integrated transmission system. Partly it cannot belong to one and partly to another. There cannot be two separate ownerships for 1% of the length of 220 KV line and for remaining 99% of the 220 KV line. As per clause 6 (b) of the Agreement dated 1st december,1989, the ownership of the service line is vested in the supplier, despite the fact that the cost thereof has been borne by the consumers. Clause 6 of the agreement, reads as under: Clause 6 (a) The consumer shall provide and continue to provide during continuance of this agreement, without any charge, accommodation to be approved by the general Manager (Com.) for the housing of supplier s equipment apparatus necessary for the performance of this Agreement. The supplier shall be at liberty to bring upon the accommodation so provided at the consumer s premises not only the cables, required for the supply of electrical energy to the consumer but also the cables, accessories and equipment necessary for giving connections to other consumer through the cables and terminals situated on the consumer s premises, provided the supply to the consumer shall in no way be interfered with or its continuity jeopardized as a result of such action on the part of the supplier. (b) Notwithstanding that a portion of a service line is paid for by the consumer the entire service line including the portion paid for by the consumer shall vest in the supplier and will be maintained at his (supplier s) cost. The consumer shall not be entitled to any refund on account of any service line cost contributed by him. It is a matter of fact that though electricity meters are at points A2 and B1 in the map at page No-151 to the memo of the petition (Annexure-III to the affidavit in rejoinder), the electricity passes through the service line beyond the premises of the petitioner company. As per the map at page- 151, the electricity comes from Point A-A2- a1-D (using Bus Bar of length of point x y ) B1-B. Thus, the electricity passes from the aforesaid service line mainly from icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa (. e. from point A to B and from b to A ). As per the map at page- 151, the electricity comes from Point A-A2- a1-D (using Bus Bar of length of point x y ) B1-B. Thus, the electricity passes from the aforesaid service line mainly from icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station and vice-versa (. e. from point A to B and from b to A ). Length between X and Y (400 meters) is equal to 1% of the total service line between point A and B, which is known as Bus Bar. This being an integrated part of the service line or distribution system, it vests in the respondents. The ownership of the service line/distribution system is with the respondents. The petitioners are claiming ownership of Bus Bar (. e. part of the 220 kv line, which is 400 meters only ). It is an admitted fact that the electricity is passing through point a to b and b to a (. e. from Icchapur sub-station to Sachin substation and vice-versa ). Whatever electricity is consumed by the petitioners are measured at points A2 and Bl but electrical power, which is not consumed by the petitioners is transmitted further from points a to b and similarly from points b to a . The ownership of service line / distribution system is not defeated merely because the consumer pays for the service line. It is vehementally submitted by the leraned counsel for the petitioners that the distribution system belongs to the respondent company only upto the metering point. Thus, in a map at page no. 151 of the memo of the petition, it is from points a to a2 . Likewise, the distribution system between points b to b1 belongs to the respondent company. This is a distribution system. As per section 2 (19) of the Act, 2003 and the wires between b1 to a2 are internal electricity wires installed at the cost of the petitioners and, therefore, the electricity line between Bl to A2 belongs to the petitioners and is not vested in the respondents. This contention of the petitioners looks attractive but if looked closely, it is dehors the provisions of the electricity Act,2003 and Clause 6 of the agreement dated lst December, 19 89. In the facts of the present case, electricity, which is belonging to the respondent company, is passing from points a to b and b to a . e. beyond the metering points. In the facts of the present case, electricity, which is belonging to the respondent company, is passing from points a to b and b to a . e. beyond the metering points. Whatever is consumed by the petitioner is recorded by specially constructed meters. Excess will pass through the line. e. A-A2-A1, through xy-B1-B. Therefore, line between X and Y, which is known as Bus Bar is also belonging to the respondents. It is not severable or separable. The following also clearly establish that the ownership of the Bus Bar has to go along with the 220 KV line and the ownership of the Bus Bar cannot be isolated and looked independently and further that there can be no dispute as to the fact that the 220 KV Bus Bar is owned, operated and maintained by the respondents. (a) The supply of electricity by GEB to Essar Steel was first agreed to as per the terms contained in the Agreement dated 1. 12. 1989 (pages 14 to 30 - Annexure "b" to the memo of the petition ). Clause 6 of the said agreement (pages 19 to 2 0 -Annexure "b" to the memo of the petition) provides for treatment of the ownership of the Service lines. At that time the supply was only on a 66 KV line from Icchapur sub station. (b) Subsequently, the line from icchapur for supply of electricity was converted into 220 KV and on 25. 5. 1994 a fresh agreement was signed (page nos. 163 to 169 -Annexure "a" to the Affidavit filed by the respondent to the memo of the petition ). Clause 6 of the said agreement dated 25. 5. 1994 (which is similar as in the previous Agreement dated 1. 12. 1989) provides as stated hereinabove. Thus, notwithstanding the contribution made by the petitioners for the above Service Lines, the petitioners agreed on two aspects, namely: (i) ownership of the Service Lines will be with GEB; and (ii) GEB would be entitled to bring upon accommodation, cables, equipments for giving connection to other consumers. (c) Subsequently, when the petitioners established 515 MW generating station and agreed to supply 3 00 MW equivalent electricity to GEB, the generating station of the petitioners was initially connected to the above 220 KV line from icchapur for evacuation of power. At that time Sachin line was not there. (c) Subsequently, when the petitioners established 515 MW generating station and agreed to supply 3 00 MW equivalent electricity to GEB, the generating station of the petitioners was initially connected to the above 220 KV line from icchapur for evacuation of power. At that time Sachin line was not there. Accordingly, the line from the near about point x in the map attached at page 151 (Annexure-III to the affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioner) (which includes the present 220 kv Bus Bar) got connected to 220 KV line from Icchapur at about Point a-1 in addition to being connected to Essar Steel manufacturing Unit at Point y in the map at page-151 to the memo of the petition. Thus, the 22 0 KV line from the generating station to Icchapur sub-station was being owned, operated and maintained by the respondents for evacuation of electricity from the generating station of Essar Power and also for supply of electricity to Essar Steel unit; (d) The generating station of Essar power was already commissioned in the year 1996 and for some time till 2001 the evacuation of power from the said station was only through Icchapur sub station. Subsequently, the respondents at its cost and expense extended the line to Sachin sub station in the year 2 001 to enable the evacuation of power and also supply of power from Icchapur to Sachin and Sachin to icchapur. Both Icchapur and Sachin sub stations are connected to other sub stations of GETCO; (e) The above extension of the icchapur line initially up to the 515 MW generating station and thereafter till Sachin sub station were all as a part of extension of service line initially constructed and/or service lines constructed subsequently as envisaged under clause 6 of the Agreements; and (f) Thus, the entire 220 KV line including the Bus Bar became an integral and integrated part of the transmission system of GETCO and is being so used. In the case of CALCUTTA electric SUPPLY CORPORATION V/s. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST bengal REPORTED IN (1972)3 SCC 222 , especially para 8 and 9, the Hon ble Supreme court has held as under: 8. Me shall now proceed to consider whether the service lines which-were constructed at the expense of consumers are the assets of the company. In the case of CALCUTTA electric SUPPLY CORPORATION V/s. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST bengal REPORTED IN (1972)3 SCC 222 , especially para 8 and 9, the Hon ble Supreme court has held as under: 8. Me shall now proceed to consider whether the service lines which-were constructed at the expense of consumers are the assets of the company. There was no material before the authorities under the Act to hold that they were not the assets of the company. The fact that those assets were acquired by the company by utilising the contributions made by the consumers is a wholly irrelevant circumstance. The only thing relevant for the purpose of the Act is that the assesses should be the owner of the assets in question on the relevant valuation date. The Act does not concern itself with the mode in which those assets were acquired. It is immaterial for the purpose of the Act whether the assesses acquired those assets from his own money or with the assistance of others. The balance-sheet shown those service connections as the assets of the assessee. It was not said that they were the assets of the consumers on the relevant valuation date. The admission in the balance- sheet (profit and loss accounts) is not rebutted by any other evidence. Hence the wealth Tax Officer was justified in holding that they were assessee s assets. The Tribunal was impressed by the fact that if and when the undertaking is sold, the assess will not get any price for the service connections in view of section 7 (A) (2) of the Indian electricity Act, 1910. Section 7 (A) provides for the determination of the purchase price on revocation of license under section 4. Whenever a license of a licensee under the indian Electricity Act is revoked under section 4, it is open to the State Government to acquire the undertaking itself or to direct the licensee to sell the undertaking to one or the other of the authorities or person designated therein. When a sale in pursuance of such a direction is effected, valuation of the undertaking is made in accordance with section 7 (A ). When a sale in pursuance of such a direction is effected, valuation of the undertaking is made in accordance with section 7 (A ). Section 7 (A) reads: "7-A. (1) Where an undertaking of a licensee, not being a local authority, is sold under sub-section (1) of Section 5, the purchase price of the undertaking shall be the-market-value of the undertaking at the time of purchase or where the undertaking has been delivered before the purchase under sub-section (3) of that section, at the time of the delivery of the undertaking and if there is any difference or dispute regarding such purchase price, the same shall be determined by arbitration. (2) The market-value of an undertaking for the purpose of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be the value of all lands, buildings, works, materials and plant of the licensee suitable to, and used by him, for the purpose of the undertaking, other than (i) a generating station declared by the licensee not to form part of the undertaking for the purpose of purchase and (ii) service-lines or other capital works or any part thereof which have been constructed at the expense of consumers, due regard being had to the nature and condition for the time being of such lands, buildings, works, materials and plant and the state of repair thereof and to the circumstance that they are in such position as to be ready for immediate working and to the suitability of the same for the purpose of the undertaking, but without any addition in respect of compulsory purchase or of goodwill or of any profits which may be or might have been made from the undertaking or of any similar consideration. (3) Where an undertaking of a licensee, being a local authority, is sold under sub-section (1) of Section 5, the purchase price of the undertaking shall be such as the State Government, having regard to the market-value of the undertaking at the date of delivery of the undertaking, may determine. (4) Where an undertaking of a licensee is purchased under Section 6, the purchase price shall be the value thereof as determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2 ). Provided that there shall be added to such value such percentage, if any, not exceeding twenty per centum of that value as may be specified in the licence on account of compulsory purchase. Provided that there shall be added to such value such percentage, if any, not exceeding twenty per centum of that value as may be specified in the licence on account of compulsory purchase. " 9. It is true that in view of Section 7 (A) (2) of the Electricity Act, in computing the market-value of the undertaking sold under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, the value of service lines which had been constructed at the expense of the consumers will not be taken into consideration. The reason for this provision is obvious. It will be the duty of the new licensee to not only maintain and repair those lines but also to replace them when they become unserviceable. But Section 7 (A) of the electricity Act only deals with sales under section 5 (1) of the Act. But if a sale is effected under Section 8, the licensee shall have the option to dispose of all land, building, works, material and plants belonging to the undertaking in such manner as he may think fit. In such sales, it is open to him (sic) (to the licensee) to value the service connections put up at the expense of the consumers and add the same in computing the sale price. It is clear from Section 5 to 8 of the Electricity act that the licensee is the owner of the service connections put up at the expense of the consumers. If that is not so, there was no purpose in mentioning in Section 7 (A) that while determining the market-value of the undertaking, the value of the service connections shall not be taken into consideration. Further Section 8 would not have permitted the licensee to pocket the value of those service connections. The fact that the value of one or more of the assets of an undertaking will not be taken into consideration in computing the value of one or more of the assets of an undertaking will not be taken into consideration in computing the value of an undertaking when sold under compulsion of law because of some statutory provision does not by itself show that it is not a valuable asset. Section 7 of the Act does not take note of hypothetical possibilities in the matter of valuation of the assets. Section 7 of the Act does not take note of hypothetical possibilities in the matter of valuation of the assets. It merely concerns itself as to what is the true market-value of the assets in question on the valuation date. So far as the market-value of the asset with which we concerned in this case there is no difficulty. We have the assessee s own admission in its balance- sheet. " In the case of HOSHIARPUR electric SUPPLY COMPANY V/s. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SIMLA reported IN A.. R. 1961 SCC 892, especially para 6, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under: "6. The assessee contended that the service lines when installed became the property of the assessee, because they were in the nature of an extension of the assesse s distributing mains. On behalf of the Revenue, it was urged relying upon the judgement of the High Court that the service lines which are paid for by the consumers do not become the property of the assessee. We do no think that it is open to us in an appeal from an order under S. 66 of the Indian Income Tax act to enter upon this question. The Tribunal did not record a finding on the question whether the assessee was the owner of the service lines. Undoubtedly, contributions were made by the consumers towards the cost of the service lines installed by the assessee which exceeded 100 ft. in length. Normally, a person who vavs for installation of property may be presumed to be the owner thereof; but such a presumption cannot necessarily be made in respect of a service line, which so long as it is used for supplying electrical energy remains an integral part of the distributing mains of an electrical undertaking. The High Court was exercising advisory jurisdiction, and-the question as to who was the owner of the service lines after they were installed could be adjudicated upon only by the Tribunal. It was for the Tribunal to record its conclusion on that question, but the Tribunal has recorded none. In our judgement, the High Court was in error in assuming to itself jurisdiction substantially appellate in character and in proceeding to decide the question as to ownership of the service lines which is a mixed question of law and fact, on which the Tribunal has given no finding. In our judgement, the High Court was in error in assuming to itself jurisdiction substantially appellate in character and in proceeding to decide the question as to ownership of the service lines which is a mixed question of law and fact, on which the Tribunal has given no finding. " In the case of THE UPPER GANGES valley ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. V/s. THE U. P. ELECTRICITY\board reported IN A.. R. 1973 SCC 683, especially para 21, the Hon ble Supreme court has held as under: "21. The conditions of the licence, the provisions of the Act and the legal position point only in one direction that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation for the service lines laid at the cost of the consumers. In the award, the Umpire has made calculations for arriving at the market value of the appellant s undertaking and has expressly excluded therefrom the "value of the portion of services installed at the cost of the consumers. " In making this exclusion, the umpire misconducted himself in law, thereby rendering the award erroneous on its face. " In the case of THE CAXTON PRESS pvt. LTD. , NEW DELHI V/s. MUNICIPAL corporation OF DELHI REPORTED IN a.. R. 1976 DELHI 30, especially para 11, reads as under: "11. A time switch is a device to control and regulate the hours of supply of energy. It cannot be said to be a device or apparatus used for distributing energy, for energy can be conveyed even without it and in fact it is being supplied to the appellant even after the time switch had been removed. A time switch is installed only to regulate the hours or period of supply and not to regulate the supply itself. The supply will continue to be transmitted even if there is no time switch. A time switch by itself is not necessary for "conveying, transmitting or distributing energy". It is not essential for the purpose of any of those functions. It does not become a part of the service line. Its office is to check the misuse of the energy by the consumer. In order to see that the appellant does not use the energy beyond the hours for which load was sanctioned to him the Undertaking required him to install a time switch at his own cost. It was not essential for transmission or distribution of energy. Its office is to check the misuse of the energy by the consumer. In order to see that the appellant does not use the energy beyond the hours for which load was sanctioned to him the Undertaking required him to install a time switch at his own cost. It was not essential for transmission or distribution of energy. It was not an integral part of the service line in the sense that its removal would affect the transmission or distribution of the supply of energy to the appellant or any other consumer on that line. " In the case of M/s. SAGAR ART service, NEW DELHI V/s. MUNICIPAL corporation, GWALIOR AND another REPORTED IN A.. R. 1988 madhya PRADESH 46, especially para 27 and 28, read as under: "27. Indeed, the term "overhead line" is also defined and in sub-clause (ii) of cl. (h) of S. 2 of 1910 Act, it means: "an electric supply line which is placed above ground and in the open air but does not include live rails of a traction system". Because in S. 2 (f) any support for wires used for conveying, transmitting and distributing energy is the integral part of the "electric supply line" or even of an "overhead line", I have no doubt that all electric poles carrying an "electric supply line" must be deemed to be the property of the licensee and for that matter, in the instant case, the property of the electricity Board. Under R. 91 afore-quoted, the Board is held responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of "every overhead line" (particularly of one "erected over any part of a street or other public place") which would also include the electric poles supporting that "line". This is done for the obvious reason that safety of public at large has to be ensured and I have no doubt, the overhead line being the property of the Board, control, maintenance and up-keep thereof is, therefore, vested in the Board. 28. As earlier pointed out, the distinction between "service line" and an "electric supply line" inheres also the distinction as to liability of the Board to bear the cost of any "service line" as against, its liability to bear the cost of an "electric supply line". This distinction is not only manifested in the definition clauses as earlier alluded, support for this may be read in other provisions also. This distinction is not only manifested in the definition clauses as earlier alluded, support for this may be read in other provisions also. In item No. 3 of cl. VI of the Schedule of the 1910 Act, there is express mention of a contingency where there may arise "any difference or dispute. . . . as to the cost of any service line". This accords with the provision of cl. (g) of Part 5 of the statutory "general Conditions for Supply of electrical Energy" framed by the Board under the provisions of S. 49 (1) of 1948 Act. It contains a deeming provision that "the service line", not withstanding that a portion thereof has been paid for by the consumers, shall be the property of the Board which shall maintain it at its cost. . . " Because cost of service line need not be solely borne statutorily under S. 3 by the Board, the latter is enabled to make a consumer pay either full or part cost thereof and yet the Board is made a proprietor thereof by operation of law. In-the case of Upper Ganges Valley Electricity supply Co. Ltd. , (1973)1 SCC 254 : ( AIR 1973 sc 683 ), their Lordships took the view that not only for the "electric supply line", even for the "service line" which was laid by the licensee with the help of contributions made by the consumers, when the undertaking of the licensee was acquired, the latter had the right to receive compensation. The proprietary or ownership right of the Board in the "electric supply line" or "service lines" statutorily created is not defeated by vesting in the Corporation of the "lamp posts" etc. in terms of S. 82 (C) of 1956 Act inasmuch as vesting thereof under that Act is for the limited purpose only as is indicated in the relevant provisions contemplating that the same "shall be held and applied by the corporation for the purposes of the Act. " evidently, the proprietary or ownership right of the lamp posts etc. did not vest in the corporation in virtue even of S. 82 (a) of 1956 Act. " Thus, from the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that payment of cost of service line may be made by the consumer but the ownership of the service line/ distribution system shall be vested in licensee. did not vest in the corporation in virtue even of S. 82 (a) of 1956 Act. " Thus, from the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that payment of cost of service line may be made by the consumer but the ownership of the service line/ distribution system shall be vested in licensee. e. respondent No. 2 company and bus Bar is such an integrated part, of 22 0 kv line that it is not severable. Therefore, it cannot be said that part of the ownership for the length of 400 meters is belonging to the petitioners and rest of the length of 220 kv line (48 KMs.) belongs to the respondent no. 2 company. In view of the aforesaid judgement, interpretation as well as keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 2 (19), 2 (17), 2 (72) and 2 (76) read with clause 6 of the Agreement between the parties dated 1st december, 1989 and even as per subsequent agreement, the whole 22 0 KV line from icchapur sub station to Sachin sub-station inclusive of Bus Bar length of 400 meters belongs to respondent No. 2. [c] Several powers are being transmitted through Icchapur sub-station to sachin sub-station : it is undisputed fact that following types of powers are being transmitted through the aforesaid 220 KV line in addition to transfer of Essar s electricity namely, the electricity from (i) generating station of 515 MW of essar Power Limited; (ii) 30 MW Captive Power Unit (CPP) of Essar Steel; (iii) 155 MW CPP of Essar Steel; and (iv) the new 240 MW CPP of Essar Steel ). It is evident from details of the facts that through the very same line, there is transmission of powers produced by the petitioners, supply of electricity from respondent No. 2, a consumption of electricity of petitioners from CPP as well as from respondent No. 2. This details are at annexure "b" to the affidavit-in reply filed by respondent No. 2. The measurement of all types of aforesaid powers coming to the service line, consumed from the service line and further transmission through the service line/ distribution system is recorded accurately at interval of 30 minutes. Thus, icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station is such a distribution system, which transmits the power belongs to respondent No. 2 beyond metering point also. The measurement of all types of aforesaid powers coming to the service line, consumed from the service line and further transmission through the service line/ distribution system is recorded accurately at interval of 30 minutes. Thus, icchapur substation to Sachin sub-station is such a distribution system, which transmits the power belongs to respondent No. 2 beyond metering point also. Ordinarily in an isolated residential unit or in an isolated factory premises, distribution system/ service line comes to an end at the metering point. Thereafter, in the house, electricity has to be distributed from one room to another room by installing separate wires by the consumer himself or by the factory owners itself and, therefore, ordinarily the ownership of the distribution system belongs to the licensee only upto the metering line but looking to the facts of the present case, especially the map at page-151 of the memo of the petition, electricity. e. goods belonging to the respondent company passes from icchapur sub-station (point a ) to Sachin subsection (point b ) and vice-versa. e. beyond metering points at A2 as well as B1. Thus, whole distribution system right from point a to b is a part and parcel of the distribution system. The length of service line between point a and b is approximately 48 KMs. This whole line belongs to respondent No. 2. Small portion thereof is Bus Bar. e. length between point x and y , which is 400 meters only. This cannot be separated as it is a part of the integrated distribution system. Several other powers are being passed from point a to b and from point b to a . This fact has not been denied by the petitioners. [d] Tariff of Wheeling Charges is not in dispute; once the electricity power is transmitted from Captive Power Plant of the petitioner to factory premises of the petitioners through the aforesaid distribution line, the petitioners are liable to make the payment of Wheeling charges. Wheeling charges are being fixed by Electricity regulatory Commission. It has power as per section 62 of the Electricity Act,2003 to determine the tariff for Wheeling of electricity. As per the avernments made in the memo of the petition, especially in para-3 of the affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioners, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of wheeling charges payable. It has power as per section 62 of the Electricity Act,2003 to determine the tariff for Wheeling of electricity. As per the avernments made in the memo of the petition, especially in para-3 of the affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioners, there is no dispute regarding the quantum of wheeling charges payable. Relevant part of para-3 of the Affidavit-in rejoinder filed by the petitioners reads as under: "3. Contents of paras 4, 5 and 6 are denied. It is denied that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy. I state that the basic dispute between the parties under present petition is with respect to the payment of wheeling charges. According to the petitioners, since the petitioner company is transmitting power-generated from its captive Power Plants (CPPs) through its own distribution system, wheeling charges are not payable. Whereas according to the respondent, since the petitioner company is transmitting power through points D and A-1 (page 139) to its manufacturing plant and the said points D and A-l are part of 220 KV Bus allegedly "propried" by the respondent, the petitioner company is liable to pay wheeling charges. I state that the dispute between the parties is not regarding the quantum of wheeling charges payable, but the dispute is in relation to the right of the respondents to recover wheeling charges from the petitioner company. I, therefore, state that the writ is the only remedy, which is available to the petitioner company and the contention that petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy is without any basis. " Thus, the quantum of Wheeling charges is not in dispute and, therefore, it is not necessary for the respondent company to approach the State Electricity Regulatory commission for insistence of the payment of wheeling, charges. Respondent company is charging the Wheeling charges only at the rate prescribed by the Electricity Regulatory commission. Each year Commission is fixing the charges and the respondent is insisting for payment of Wheeling charges for transmission of electricity of GPP of petitioner to the factory premises of the petitioner at the rate of tariff fixed by the electricity Regulatory Commission. CPP Essar steel is manufacturing electricity of 515 MW. Out of this, 215 MW is being consumed by the petitioners (Captive Consumption) whereas remaining 300 MW of electricity is sold to respondent No. 2 company. CPP Essar steel is manufacturing electricity of 515 MW. Out of this, 215 MW is being consumed by the petitioners (Captive Consumption) whereas remaining 300 MW of electricity is sold to respondent No. 2 company. There is need of transfer of electricity from CPP (manufacturing point) to factory premises of the petitioner (consumption point ). This transfer/transmission of electricity is through distribution system belonging to respondent no. 2 and as the distribution system of respondent No. 2 is used for conveyance of electricity from CPP unit to factory premises of the petitioners. Wheeling charges is always leviable at the rate fixed by Electricity regulatory Commission, as per section 86 of the Act, 2003. It is the contention of the petitioners that for transfer of Electricity from captive Power Plant to the factory premises of the petitioners, they are using very small part of distribution system, which was infect, installed at the cost of the petitioners. Therefore, they are not liable for the wheeling charges. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the whole distribution system (inclusive of Bus Bar) is belonging to the respondent company and even if the small part of the distribution system is used, the petitioners are liable to make the payment of Wheeling charges. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till January, 2006, no bill of Wheeling charges was ever issued by the respondents. Therefore, impugned demand notices dated 18th january,2006 and 5th June, 2006 and bills for the month May, 2005 to May,2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the Wheeling charges is legally leviable by the respondents from the petitioners. Merely because for some period bill has not been issued by the respondent company never estopped the respondents from issuing bills for Wheeling charges, if it is otherwise leviable, and it is not necessary that one has to persist upon ones mistake or error. It is never late to mend. This is very much true especially when there is question of levy of charges by a public body. If these charges are not collected by the respondent, it is a loss not only by respondent No. 2 company but also it is a loss to the public at large. It is never late to mend. This is very much true especially when there is question of levy of charges by a public body. If these charges are not collected by the respondent, it is a loss not only by respondent No. 2 company but also it is a loss to the public at large. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the demand notice dated 18th January, 2006 as well as 5th June, 2006 and bills for the month of May,2005 to May,2006 is true and correct and the petitioners are liable to make the payment of Wheeling charges for transmission of electricity. There is no substance in this Special Civil Application and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.