LAW FOR ALL

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. =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 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.- 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 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/-.= neither in the first demand notice dated 10.12.1992 nor in the second 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 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 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.- 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 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.