TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectricity Board stating that the said connection had a sanctioned load of 52.49 KW and it was required to be clubbed with electric connection in the name of Janak Raj bearing electric connection No. MS-32/580 with sanction load of 56.79 KW. Reply was submitted by him to the Memo wherein he had stated the above facts. It was further clarified that his property was separate and distinct from property possessed by Sudesh Mahajan and the electric connection in that premises was in the name of Janak Raj. They denied the cross wiring in the property or even that the connection was being commonly used by the parties. Thus, they contested the demand raised by the Electricity Board to the extent of Rs.3,28,216/-. 2. Similarly, in the other case Sudesh Mahajan had filed a complaint claiming a sale in favour of his predecessor in interest on 28th November, 1996. They denied the charges of clubbing and took up the stand that they were independent properties wherein different meters have been installed and as such, the demand of Rs.4,56,025/- and Rs.3,28,261/- was not payable by any of the consumers namely Janak Raj and Kartari Devi or persons claiming through them. To challenge the same, comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Industries owned by Shri Sudesh Mahajan. In this state of circumstances order passed by the State Commission cannot be said to be, in any way, erroneous. Hence, these Revision Petitions are dismissed." 3. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the National Commission is challeged in these appeals. At the very outset, we may notice that the electric supply regulations have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49 and Sub Section (j) of Section 79 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short referred as 'the Act') and other enabling provisions by the Board. These regulations deal with different aspects, in particular, they deal with providing of one connection in one premises and consumer is required to give an undertaking on a non-judicial stamp paper that no connection already exists in the premises, in which, the connection is being applied in terms of Clause 3.1.1 of the Regulations. Other relevant provisions which have a bearing on the matters in controversy before us, relate to new connection in the same premises, transfer of the premises, where there exists a connection and the obligation on the part of the consumer to get the connect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable w.e.f. 1.1.96. 4. The circular, which has been relied upon by the parties reads as follows: "In order to encourage the consumers to opt for clubbing of their loads and also to facilitate a smooth transition, it has been decided that all consumers may be asked to give undertaking for clubbing/conversion of two or more connections in the same premises, wherever existing by 31.1.97. Further action in various situations may be taken as under: (a) Cases where no change of voltage level is involved; The cost of clubbing with regard to service Mains, if any, shall be borne by the Board. However, consumer shall be charged higher tariff wherever applicable, from the date of undertaking, which in any case shall have to be given before 31.1.97. (a) Cases where change of voltage level is involved; In cases requiring conversion of supply voltage from LT to 11 KV, Board shall carry out the conversion including erection of a new 11/0.4 KV transformer with allied equipment in the first instance and recover the conversion cost in six equal monthly installments from the consumer. Note:- Where there is a transformer exclusively feeding the consumer, this may, on the option of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we may revert back to the facts of the present case. The officers of the Electricity Board had conducted inspection of the premises in question and prepared an inspection report. As per the inspection report, there is only one plot being Plot No. 136, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana and in that Smt. Kartari Devi is stated to be the consumer. She has a sanctioned load of 52.49 KW and the Consumer Account No. was MS-32/603. The other consumer is Shri Janak Raj in the same property having Consumer Account No. MS-32/580 with a sanctioned load of 56.79 KW. In the report, it was noticed as follows:- "6. In the connected portion of premises (Aahata) one more connection MS-32/0603 Kartar Devi is installed. The supply of which also comes to this premises and at the moment some load of that connection is found running on this side. 7. The common wall of both sides has one shutter and one Kainchi Gate. In the half portion of Kainchi Gate a wall of approximately four feet exists. As per Board instructions case of clubbing is made out action be taken." 6. This report was signed by Shakti Jaggi, a representative of the consumer, to whom the copy of the same was given. The Department, vide their l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0), noticed by the State Commission, show that the consumer had advanced the argument of separate properties, separate ownership and separate connections. However, there is no reason recorded as to why the evidence of the Department i.e. the inspection report is incorrect and cannot be relied upon. There is ambiguity. The District Forum, while relying upon the report, had rejected the complaint which was reversed by the State Forum. These are the findings of facts and they must be recorded in a manner which would clearly establish on record the case of one party or the other in accordance with law. The trading accounts filed by the consumer in one of the appeals related to financial year 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1996-97. On behalf of respondents, Subhash Chander, had filed the rent receipts for the period 1st April, 2002 to 30th September, 2002. Primarily, the documents produced by the consumers related to the period prior to the date of inspection. The inspection of the premises was conducted on 19th June, 2002. It was required of the consumers to establish their case for the period, at the time of or subsequent to the date of inspection. There could reasonably be possibilit....