IN THE MATTER OF:

In the matter of petition filed by Sh. B.B. Katyal, Partner,  M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal in respect of non-release of No Dues Certificate to M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal, Consumer A/c. No. MS-9.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF  :

Versus

ORDER

1.     The  petition dated 4.11.2004 has been filed  under section 26 and 27 of  Conduct of Business Regulations of HERC by Sh. B.B. Katyal, Partner,  M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal in respect of non-release of No Dues Certificate to M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal, Consumer A/c. No. MS-9. The petitioner has stated that :

1.1     The electric connection against Account No. MS-9 was released to their mill after depositing the security amount of Rs.6700/-.

1.2     They sought temporary disconnection (of their seasonal industry) from 13.4.1990 to 12.10.1990, which was allowed by the respondents. They applied for permanent disconnection on 26.10.1990, which was not done by the respondents.

1.3   Vide their letter-dated 28.1.1991, they again requested the respondents to disconnect permanently the electric supply against Account No. MS-9.

1.4   Vide their letter-dated 3.2.1992 the respondents were reminded regarding their request for permanent disconnection. The respondents were also requested to issue “No Dues Certificate”.

1.5   The respondents did not issue the No Dues Certificate in spite of numerous personal visits and reminders dated 18.1.1994, 21.4.1995, 13.5.1996 and 26.3.2003.

1.6   They received the recovery notice amounting to Rs.1,99,382/- issued vide Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation Sub-Division, Nilokheri, Memo No. 3085/84 dated 22.10.2003.

1.7   Vide letter dated 9.3.2004 they represented to Hon’ble Chairman, Haryana, Power Utilities, Panchkula with a copy to Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana and Managing Director, UHBVNL regarding illegal demand raised by the respondents without any justification and reasoning.

1.8   They deposited a sum of Rs.1,99,382/- vide Receipt No. 325/5730 dated 26.7.2004 under protest as the respondents failed to take action for 13 years.

1.9    Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation, Nilokheri was supposed to disconnect the supply  permanently in view of their request dated 26.10.1990 but the respondents failed to disconnect the supply permanently resulting into deficiency of service and raising of unwarranted bills on MMC basis.

1.10  Also, in accordance with the instructions of the respondents, Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation, Nilokheri was required to disconnect the electric supply permanently in case of default in payment in January 1991 after issuing notice and affecting TDCO and refund the balance amount of Rs.2616.50 after adjusting the bill amount of Rs.4183.50 against the security amounting to Rs.6700/- deposited by them. Sub-Divisional Officer, Operation failed to discharge his duties resulting into unnecessary dispute and huge outstanding amount against them.

2.           With reference to the aforesaid petition, the Commission directed the respondents vide  Memo. No. 1720-23/HERC/PRO-14 of 2004 Dated 18.11.2004 to file their reply. The respondents submitted  vide their letter dated 6.12.2004 that the matter was already sub-judice as the petitioner had filed a case concerning the  same issue with District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal and the case was slated to be heard on 24.12.2004. Respondents also supplied a copy of the  petition filed by the petitioner in the  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal. Vide rejoinder dated 15.12.2004 the petitioner supplied a copy of  orders dated 3.11.2004 of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal  indicating dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner as withdrawn, as the petitioner did not want to proceed further with the complaint.

3.     The case was heard on 22.12.2004. However, the MD, UHBVNL (respondent) submitted that they  could not prepare and submit their   reply  (to the petition) to the Commission as the intimation in regard to withdrawal of the case, by the petitioner, from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal had not been received by them. The MD,  UHBVNL (respondent) pleaded for grant of extension in time to enable them to submit their reply and also requested the Commission to fix a  fresh date of hearing. The Commission considered the above position and decided to grant extension in time for submission of the reply by the respondents.  The  request of the respondents  for  new  date of hearing was also acceded  and the case was finally  heard on 10.2.2005.

4.     In para-wise reply,  the respondents vide filing dated 7.1.2005 have stated that :

4.1   The contents are a matter of record and hence need no reply. 

4.2       The contents are admitted to the extent in so far as they relate to temporary disconnection from 13.4.1990 to 12.10.1990. Rest of the contents  of the para are denied by the respondents; being wrong, misconceived and incorrectly stated. It has further been brought out that on the basis of alleged letter dated 26.10.1990, the petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Suit on 3.1.1991 in the Hon’ble Court of Sub-judge Ist class, Karnal against the Electricity Bill raised by respondents for the months of  November & December, 1990 and for restraining the respondents against sending any further  bills. The petition was dismissed by the learned Sub-judge, Karnal vide judgement dated 7.9.1994. The petitioner did  not prefer any appeal against the judgement and the judgement had attained finality.

4.3  The contents are denied by the respondents; being wrong, misconceived  and incorrectly stated. It has been stated that the letter dated 28.1.1991 is fabricated and the petitioner is playing fraud upon the answering respondents and the Hon’ble Commission.

       The temporary disconnection of the premises of the petitioner from 13.4.1990 to 12.10.1990 was made by the respondents at the request of the petitioner. On 23.7.1990 the respondent requested  the petitioner to get the meter/equipment shifted at the entrance of the premises. On 2.8.1990 the petitioner intimated the respondents that he had provided space and  equipment at the main entrance of the premises. On 10.9.1990 the petitioner requested for restoration of seasonal connection from 15.9.1990 to 1.4.1991. On 5.10.1990 the respondents again requested the petitioner to shift main switch and controlling equipment at the main gate. On 19.10.1990 the petitioner informed the respondents that he had got electrical fittings shifted at the main gate and requested for shifting of meter and restoration of  supply. In December 1990 the petitioner requested the respondents to release the load informing that CT meter has been installed. On 5.1.1991 the JE Incharge visited the premises but the load was not available. Intimation in this regard was sent by the respondents to the petitioner on 25.1.1991 and the petitioner was also requested to intimate the respondents as and when the load was available so that supply could be restored. Vide letters dated 9.4.1991 and 1.5.1991 the petitioner represented to respondents stating that CT meter was got fixed by him on 26.10.1990 and he had been requesting for restoration of the supply since then. The respondents pointed out  in their reply that the petitioner had been pursuing with  the respondents for restoration of supply/connection  and not for permanent disconnection as falsely alleged  in the petition and the petitioner has fabricated the letter dated 28.1.1991.

4.4   No request for permanent disconnection was made by the petitioner and the letter dated 3.2.1992 has  also been fabricated by the petitioner.

4.5   The letters dated 18.1.1994, 21.4.1995 and 13.5.1996 are also false and fabricated    and these letters were supplied to the respondents only on 5.11.2003. Letter dated 26.3.2003 was also not received by the respondents.

4.6   After dismissal (on 7.9.1994) of the civil suit filed by the petitioner, by the Hon’ble Court of Sub-judge, Karnal, the supply of the petitioner was permanently disconnected on 5.1.1995 and the final bill amounting to Rs.1,99,382/- for MMC charges w.e.f. February 1991 to December 1994 was raised after adjusting the security of the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the amount without protest on 26.7.2004.

4.7   The contents are denied as the amount of the bill raised was legally chargeable and    pertains to the period from 2/1991 to 5.1.1995 when the petitioner had been provided with regular supply. The supply was permanently  disconnected on 5.1.1995 after passing of judgment by the Hon’ble Court of Sub-judge, Karnal against the petitioner.

4.8   The contents are denied as the amount was deposited by the petitioner without any protest.

4.9  The contents of Para 1.9 and 1.10 of the petition  are denied; being wrong, misconceived and incorrectly stated in view of the facts brought out in the reply at  Para 4.3. The respondents further submitted that the subject matter in dispute had been settled long back by the Hon’ble Court of Sub-judge, Karnal vide judgement dated 7.9.1994. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the District Consumer Forum, Karnal and orders in this regard were passed on 3.11.2004.  Moreover the present petition is highly time barred.

5.     During the course of hearing on 10.2.2005 on the above petition, the Commission directed the respondent to file additional information regarding installation of C.T. Meters in place of whole current meters at other Rice Mills.  The respondents supplied the requisite information vide their  submission dated 17.2.2005 as under :

5.1   During the year 1989-1990 there were seven number rice mills at Nilokheri where the whole current meters (3 x100 Amps) existed for recording of energy.  The then Director (Vigilance & Security), HSEB, Panchkula vide his memo No. 2010/15/Enf.-1 dated 20.9.89 directed that R.C.O. of Rice Shellers may not be issued till the direct current meters were replaced with C.T. meters and the meters  shifted at the gate of the premises. In case of other six rice mills, the whole current meters were replaced with C.T. meters between December, 1989 and December, 1990  but in the case of M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, the C.T. meter could not be installed due to non provision of metering room at the gate of the mill and  non arranging of C.T. meter by the said firm.  The C.T. meter could be installed at the premises of M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries only after the meter room was provided and C.T. meter arranged by the firm in November, 1991.                          

5.2   The respondents have submitted documentary evidence in support of their reply.  They have attached a copy of   Memo No. 2010/15/Enf-1 dated 20.9.1989 from Director/V&S HSEB. The respondents have further attached the lists of the Rice Shellers in respect of Nilokheri and Taraori Sub-Divisions indicating the date of replacement of whole current meters with C.T. meters.

6.        Commission’s View & Order:

After going through the record and hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents on 10.02.2005, the Commission observes as under:

6.1   The petitioner has concealed the facts and misrepresented the case before the Commission.  The petitioner has deliberately concealed from the Commission that they had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Karnal stating that the supply to their premises was disconnected by the respondent on 26.10.90 with reference to their request dated 26.10.1990. As such the bill for November-December, 1990 (Rs.4183.50) raised by the respondents  was  illegal. The petitioner had also  prayed         before the Court of Sub Judge, Karnal for restraining the respondents from raising any future bills. This petition was dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge, Karnal on 07.09.1994. The Petitioner did not file an appeal in the higher court against the orders of  court of Sub Judge, Karnal and thus the judgment had  attained finality.

6.2   The petitioner has also concealed from the Commission that they had filed a petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal on 03.02.2004 stating that their supply was permanently disconnected in 1991 with reference to their application dated 28.01.1991.

6.3   It is observed that petitioner had mentioned the date of permanent disconnection as 26/10/1990 in their petition filed before the Court of Sub Judge, Karnal,   while they had stated in their petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal that their supply was disconnected permanently in 1991 with reference to their application dated 28.01.1991. Both these statements are contradictory to each other and are different from the petition filed before the Commission wherein it has been stated by the petitioner that he requested for permanent disconnection of supply on 26.10.1990  but the same  was not done by the respondents.

6.4   The documentary evidences submitted by the respondents with their reply indicate correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents between 23.7.1990 and 25.1.1991 regarding shifting of the meter at the main gate and restoration of supply.  The petitioner vide their letter dated 10.9.1990 had requested the respondents to restore supply to their  seasonal industry  from 15.9.1990 to 1.4.1991 and intimated subsequently on 19.10.1990 that they had got done necessary electrical fittings for shifting of meter at main gate. It was further intimated by petitioner, in December, 1990  to the  respondents  that they  are  in  a position to take the load.  On 25.1.1991  it was intimated by the respondents to the petitioner that JE Incharge visited their premises on 5.1.1991 but load was not available with the petitioner. The petitioner was also requested to intimate the respondents as and when the load was available so that supply could be restored.  The documents submitted by the petitioner do not indicate that they conveyed availability of load for restoration of supply  with reference to the letter dated 25.1.91 of the respondents.

       The documents supplied by the respondents in their reply reveal that the petitioner, vide letters dated 9.4.91 and 1.5.91 (written on the letter head of Katyal Rice Mills & General Industries), had pointed out that rice milling period was over and,  as such, the matter had lost its urgency.  In the above letters the petitioner requested that action be initiated to fix the responsibility for the loss suffered by them due to non-restoration of supply to them. However, in these letters, neither the petitioner had mentioned his intention to get his premises permanently disconnected nor had given reference to any of his alleged previous applications, dated 26.10.1990 and 28.1.1991 for permanent disconnection of supply, which form the basis of  his present petition. It thus  creates doubt about writing of any of such letters by the petitioner to the respondents and  the  letters appear to be fabricated by the petitioner at a later date.

In view of the foregoing, it is obvious  that the petitioner had been  pursuing with the respondents up to January, 1991 for restoration  of  supply. As such, the statement that the petitioner approached the respondents for permanent disconnection of supply vide their  letter dated 26.10.1990 (copy of letter not supplied) and letter dated 28.1.1991 is  wrong.

6.5   The respondents have submitted in their reply that the connection of the petitioner was restored on 26.11.1991 during the pendency of their case in the Court of Sub-Judge, Karnal. Had the petitioner been interested in permanent disconnection of the supply, they would not have allowed  the respondents to restore supply on 26.11.1991 or  they could have brought the matter to the notice of the court of Sub Judge , Karnal as the case was sub-judice at that time.

6.6  The respondents refuted the statement made by the petitioner that they received the  bill amounting to  Rs. 1,99,382/- on 22.10.2003. The respondents produced the official record during the course of hearing to prove that the bills had regularly been  raised by the respondents to  the petitioner and  the amount of Rs. 1,99,382/- pertains to the period 2/91 to  5.1.95 i.e. till the date of permanent disconnection of the supply.

6.7   In view of the para 6.1 to 6.6 above, the Commission dismisses the petition of M/s. Katyal Rice Mills and General Industries, Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal, filed through Sh. B.B. Katyal, Partner and  decides that the bill amounting to  Rs. 1,99,382/- already paid by the petitioner, for the period February, 1991 to 5.1.1995 i.e. upto the date of permanent disconnection of the supply of the petitioner was  justified and payable by the petitioner to the respondents.

This order is signed and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on April 15, 2005.

Dated: 15.04.2005

Place:  Panchkula