CWP-19447-202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 203 M/S B. S. FOOD PRODUCTS PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- None Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. TRIBHUVAN The quashing the order dated Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 asked to deposit charges for ₹5,59,749, calculated 2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondents charges have been rightly assessed usage of electricity vide its letters dated Annexures P-4 and P been caused on account of some dysfunction submits that notices 2, respectively excess load. H 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: M/S B. S. FOOD PRODUCTS Versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA None for the petitioner. Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia order dated 03.06.2024, passed by the second respondent Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit charges for unauthorised calculated as per the Supply Code, There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents been rightly assessed as the petitioner itself admitted the excess usage of electricity vide its letters dated 4 and P-7, respectively, stating that on account of some dysfunction notices, dated 23.01.2024 and 01.04.2024, Annexures P 2, respectively, were served upon the petitioner However, it failed to do so and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19447-2025 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 …Petitioner(s) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari , passed by the second respondent under , whereby the petitioner has been unauthorised used of electricity amounting 2014. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the as the petitioner itself admitted the excess usage of electricity vide its letters dated 16.04.2024 and 24.05.2024, , stating that the excess load usage had on account of some dysfunction of capacitor in its mill. He also , dated 23.01.2024 and 01.04.2024, Annexures P-1 and P- upon the petitioner to regularise or remove the and, consequently, the provisional OTHERS certiorari under , whereby the petitioner has been of electricity amounting contended that the as the petitioner itself admitted the excess , the excess load usage had He also - to regularise or remove the the provisional AMAN DUA 2026.07.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-19447-202 assessment order dated neither any payment Accordingly, Annexure P-6, was issued the final order of assessment for 03.06.2024, Annexure P Appellate Authority Division, after was dismissed vide impugned order date c) 1 to 4 5. even after receiving the notice on 23.01.2024, the appellant did not control his MDI, the appellant applied for increase in loa It is stated that the load/demand sanctioned through the Contract Agreement between the consumer and the utility is not allowed to exceed the sanctioned MDI without taking official approval from the overloading and damage to the equipment on the grids. Due to the above reasons, the appellant had to keep his MDI under control till the increase in the contract demand. From which it is clear that t constitutes a (second Proviso) of Section 101 of ESIM 4. It is apparent on record that the over and above its letters dated 16.04.2024 and 24.05.2024 equipment in 2025 -2- assessment order dated 10.04.2024, Annexure P neither any payment was made, nor was another order of provisional assessment dated , was issued. Situation remained the final order of assessment for the unauthorised , Annexure P-9, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Superintendent after depositing fifty per cent of the was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.05.202 c) Case assessment 1 to 4 xxx xxx xxx 5. As per the records of the above case, it was observed that even after receiving the notice on 23.01.2024, the appellant did not control his MDI, the appellant applied for increase in load/demand on 16.04.2024, which was approved on 11.12.2024. It is stated that the load/demand sanctioned through the Contract Agreement between the consumer and the utility is not allowed to exceed the sanctioned MDI without taking official approval from the utility. Due to the increase in MDI, there is a risk of overloading and damage to the equipment on the grids. Due to the above reasons, the appellant had to keep his MDI under control till the increase in the contract demand. From which it is clear that the appellant failed to comply with this notice, which constitutes a case of unauthorized use of electricity as per 36.1.3 (second Proviso) of Section 101 of ESIM It is apparent on record that the over and above the sanctioned load and the fact has been dated 16.04.2024 and 24.05.2024. It was in proper working condition and , Annexure P-3, was issued. Thereafter, was the excess load regularised. another order of provisional assessment dated 16.05.2024, the same, leading to issuance of unauthorised usage of electricity, dated , which was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Superintendent Engineer (P & M) depositing fifty per cent of the assessed amount. The appeal 14.05.2025, by observing as under: As per the records of the above case, it was observed that even after receiving the notice on 23.01.2024, the appellant did not control his MDI, the appellant applied for increase in d/demand on 16.04.2024, which was approved on 11.12.2024. It is stated that the load/demand sanctioned through the Contract Agreement between the consumer and the utility is not allowed to exceed the sanctioned MDI without taking official approval from utility. Due to the increase in MDI, there is a risk of overloading and damage to the equipment on the grids. Due to the above reasons, the appellant had to keep his MDI under control till the increase in the contract demand. From which it is he appellant failed to comply with this notice, which case of unauthorized use of electricity as per 36.1.3 (second Proviso) of Section 101 of ESIM. It is apparent on record that the petitioner consumed electricity load and the fact has been admitted by it vide . It was duty-bound to keep its and ensure that the electricity in , . 16.05.2024, leading to issuance of dated , which was challenged by the petitioner before the Engineer (P & M) amount. The appeal As per the records of the above case, it was observed that even after receiving the notice on 23.01.2024, the appellant did not control his MDI, the appellant applied for increase in d/demand on 16.04.2024, which was approved on 11.12.2024. It is stated that the load/demand sanctioned through the Contract Agreement between the consumer and the utility is not allowed to exceed the sanctioned MDI without taking official approval from utility. Due to the increase in MDI, there is a risk of overloading and damage to the equipment on the grids. Due to the above reasons, the appellant had to keep his MDI under control till the increase in the contract demand. From which it is he appellant failed to comply with this notice, which case of unauthorized use of electricity as per 36.1.3 electricity vide its that the electricity in AMAN DUA 2026.07.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-19447-202 excess of the sanctioned load it liable to pay appellate authority applicable Regulations infirmity or illegality 5. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. 20.07.2026 Ad 2025 -3- excess of the sanctioned load was not consumed liable to pay charges for the excess consumption appellate authority, the assessment has been made in accordance with the Regulations, and the order passed by or illegality. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable not consumed. Its failure to do so rendered for the excess consumption. As per order of the , the assessment has been made in accordance with the the order passed by it does not suffer from any In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ed . As per order of the , the assessment has been made in accordance with the any ) AMAN DUA 2026.07.24 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document