GENETIC INDUSTRIAL GASES (P) LTD. vs U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

ACCORDING to the Complainant, M/s. Genetic Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. (for short the Company) it was swayed by the brochure titled "Welcome to U.P." issued by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., promising readily available infrastructure like roads, drainage, power distribution lines etc. It had applied for allotment of a plot at Gajraula in 1986 and a plot was allotted to it in Industrial Area, Gajraula. Due to certain difficulties in the completion of procedural formalities the company could not commence the project till April, 1989. Thereafter, the work on the project was implemented in full vigour. On 5th January, 1990, the UP. Financial Corporation had advanced a loan to the Company and also addressed a letter to the U.P.State Electricity Board (for short the ''Board'') recommending that the power load may be sanctioned in favour of the Company at the earliest as the project is under implementation. The Company too wrote a letter dated 11th January, 1990 to the Executive Engineer of the Board.

IT is further the case of the Complainant Company that the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Board had forwarded technical feasibility report favouring the connection to the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 16th January, 1990. The Superintending Engineer sanctioned power load of 97 HP to the Company vide letter dated 21st February, 1990. The Executive Engineer directed the S.D.O. Electricity Distribution Sub-Division, Gajraula to prepare and send the estimate for further action vide his letter dated 9th March, 1990. By the beginning of March, 1990, the construction of the factory building of the Company as well as the installation of the plant and machinery had been completed and it was serious of commencing the production with trial runs in the presence of supplier of plant and machinery within the warranty period, but without electricity power connection it had no option but to depend on its diesel generator set already installed in the factory. The plant and machinery of the Company is designed for continuous running for 24 hours in three shifts without any interruption of power supply as they are automatically designed and any interruption would affect the manufacturing and production schedule. A diesel set cannot run beyond 72 hours without giving 10 hours to 12 hours rest. When the generator set has to be shut down, there is a loss of heat in the re-boiler of the plant and whenever recommissioned it takes at least 3 hours of its working as well as the plant to generate the required heat in the boiler. After every ten days the generator set has to be shut down for two days for its proper service, maintenance and over-hauling by change of essential parts like filter etc. Such maintenance involves a minimum expenditure of Rs. 4,000/-besides affecting the production schedule. The Company was repeatedly contacting the local authorities of the Board at Gajraula ever since, March, 1990 regarding the estimate to be prepared for giving power to the Company. Sometime in early December, 1990 the Company came to know from the local Board''s authorities that the report of estimate has been prepared and sent to the higher authorities charging a sum of Rs. 3,891/-to the Company and the balance amount would be borne by the Board. The Company, accordingly, sent a demand draft for Rs. 3,891/- on 3rd December, 1990 and endorsed copies to other various Government departments of U.P. Government requesting for the immediate release of the power connection as the Company was suffering heavy losses due to non-availability of power. The Joint Director of Industries, Moradabad Mandal wrote letter dated 7th December, 1990, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Moradabad inviting a reference to the Company''s letter dated 3rd December, 1990 for release of electric connection to the Company. However, to the utter surprise of the Company, letter dated 18th March, 1991, was received from the Office of the Executive Engineer stating that the estimate has not been sanctioned and no demand note had been sent to the Company from its Office to deposit the amount of security and S.C. charges. The demand draft for Rs. 3,891/- sent by the Company was also returned. The Company received a copy of the letter dated 2nd August, 1991 addressed by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Moradabad to the Chief Engineer, Moradabad Zone requesting for the immediate release of the power connection to the Company and further stating that the matter would be taken up again for discussion by the high level meeting to be held on 8th August, 1991. A Director of the Company also attended the said meeting and explained the problems and difficulties faced by the unit without electricity connection. The Company wrote letter dated 14th August, 1991 to the Executive Engineer, Moradabad for the early preparation of the estimate and release of the power connection immediately as the unit was suffering from heavy losses and the unit was running only with the help of a generator set for the last 2 years. The Company received copy of the letter dated 23rd August, 1991 addressed by the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Moradabad to the Executive Director, Udyog Bandhu, Lucknow enclosing therewith a copy of the letter dated 11th August, 1991 of the Chief Engineer, Moradabad Zone and addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the Board, Lucknow, wherein it was explained that as soon as the transformer would be installed for which the estimate had already been sanctioned, the power connection would be released to the Company. After making Himalayan efforts the Company was successful in getting the revised estimate prepared and sanctioned by the Competent Authorities. The Executive Engineer vide letter dated 16th January, 1992 forwarded a copy of sanctioned revised estimate and further directed the Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,550/- as security charges and Rs. 38,150/- as S.C. charges on or before 15th February, 1992 for releasing the power connection of 97H.P. to the factory of the Company. The Company, accordingly paid the amount by way of two demand drafts dated 23rd January, 1992. The Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 24th January, 1992 informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gajraula that the Company had deposited the required amount and executed the necessary agreement and, therefore, necessary action about the supply of electricity to the factory of the Company be taken up. In spite of the fact that the Company had fulfilled all obligations and also parted with a sum of Rs. 52,700/- as early as on 31st January, 1992, the Board was not releasing the electric connection to the factory. The Company has reliably learnt that power connection had been released to four other units (mentioned in the complaint) whose units were not even set up in February, 1990 while the Company''s power load was sanctioned on 21st February, 1990 but the connection had not been released to it. The Company, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the Board to implement the letter dated 21st February, 1990 written by the Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer sanctioning the load. Rs. 88,71,407/- were claimed as compensation towards the loss suffered by the Company due to the inaction of the Opposite Parties. Interest on the amount of Rs. 52,700/-at the rat of 24% was also claimed from I 23rd January, 1992 on which date that amount was deposited.

THE Opposite Parties Nos. l and 2 are Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer respectively of the Board while Opposite Party No. 3 is the Board itself. They filed a counter contesting the complaint. According to them the Complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous as the declaration submitted by the Complainant before the Excise Authorities shows that the factory of the Company has run only for about six days production wise during the last four years and thus it appears that it was not in running capacity and the present complaint has been filed only to make out some case before the U.P. Financial Corporation from where the Company has taken a loan.

ON merits it was pleaded that the Complainant had applied for the sanction of power of 97 HP which was sanctioned on 21st February, 1990 but, it was based on the technical feasibility report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer taking into consideration the proposed sub-station which was constructed at the Industrial Estate, Gajraula. The said sanction was also subject to certain condition specified therein viz. grant of licence by Government to the Company, SSI registration and release of connection on the basis of other priorities. The Company had unilaterally submitted the draft for Rs. 3,891/-without any demand and, therefore, it was returned to it The Opposite Parties were not in a position to give power connection to the Company on account of the fact that the energisation of the newly constructed 33/11/KV Sub-station at Industrial Estate, Gajraula, was not possible due to non-availability of MVA transformer. In this connection several meetings were held and f the problems of several industries including of the Complainant were discussed, pursuant to the instructions of the Joint Director, Industries, Moradabad, but no solution was forthcoming. Understanding the genuine problem of the Board, the Complainant moved the Board vide letter dated 14th August, 1991 for supply of energy through rural feeder. On the receipt of the said letter, Opposite Party No. 2 submitted an estimate for supply of power from the Sehali feeder vide letter dated 11 September, 1991 and the I same was sent to the Superintending Engineer for sanction. The change of source of supply of power from the industrial line to Sehali Rural Feeder naturally further delayed in the completion of the formalities. The total cost W£S estimated at Rs. 2,33,580/- out of which the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,011/-. Before the said estimate could be sanctioned, on knowing that the work at Sub-station at Industrial Estate, Gajraula would stand completed very shortly, the petitioner insisted again for supply from the newly constructed Sub-station at the Industrial Estate. In fact, the Complainant had been favoured by the Board in preparation of the estimate even before the sub-station at the Industrial Estate was energised so that there should not be any delay in releasing the connection to that there should not be any delay in releasing the connection to the Complainant. The service line of the Complainant was started and the same was completed on 20th August, However, it was found that the Complainant had not installed the main L.T. Switching System for taking the supply as required by Rule 50 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Reminder was sent to the Complainant vide letters dated 27th September, 1992 and 12th December, 1992 but, the Complainant did not install the said system. The sub-station of Industrial Estate, Gajraula was commissioned in December, 1992. Even thereafter reminders were sent to the Complainant on 6th March, 1993, 27th March, 1993 and 13th May, 1993 to install the switching system so that connection could be released to him, but the Complainant did not comply and up to this time he has not installed the said system. However, in view of the present complaint, supply was released to the unit of the complainant on 11th November, 1993. A report was prepared on that date, but the Company''s representative refused to sign the said report. A letter was again sent to the Complainant Company on 12th November, 1993 directing it to install the switching system, but it has not been installed. Thus, the Complainant himself delayed the release of supply of electricity. The power connection was disconnected on 13th June, 1994 as the Complainant had not deposited the outstanding electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1,98,428 Ps. plus late payment charges. About the four factories mentioned in the complaint to whom the power is said to have been released prior to the Complainant, the Board pleaded that the supply was released to those factories in December, 1992 or January, 1993 after those had complied with the formalities.

THE Complainant filed replication in which it was pleaded that the Board had been informed by letter dated 25th December, 1993 that the electricity connection has been released by the Board suo motu and therefore, the Complainant cannot be held responsible for any demand claimed by the Opposite Parties.

THE parties have been heard and their pleadings have been gone into carefully. We are of opinion that the Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible in the present case-for the delay in supplying electricity to the Complainant. As stated by the Opposite Parties power connection is given only subject to the following conditions: (i) Subject to availability of supply. (ii) Subject to restored programme of the Board/Government of U.P. (iii) Subject to availability of transformer. In the present case the sub-station at Industrial Estate, Gajraula was under construction and, therefore, the supply to the Company could not be released as soon as the sanction order was issued. When the sub-station was completed, the transformer was not available. Knowing the difficulty of the Board the Complainant applied for supply of electricity from the rural feeder. When the estimate prepared from that feeder was found on the higher side and the completion of the sub-station in the Industrial Estate, Gajraula was in sight, the Complainant gave up the demand for supply from the rural feeder and wrote that he may be supplied electricity from that sub-station. At the instance of the Complainant the estimates had to be prepared once again a couple of times.

Even before the energisation of the sub-station, the Complainant was asked to install the LT switching system but in spite of various reminders he failed to do so. The Board suo-motu released electric supply on 11th November, 1993 to which the Complainant has raised objection and has stated that he is not liable even to pay the minimum demand charges. The Complainant in his rejoinder has stated that it had installed switching system though the main switch had not been installed. If it had done so, the Complainant ought to have informed the Board about the installation. Further, the Opposite Party has produced letter dated the 13th May, 1993 written to the Complainant stating that in spite of various reminders no intimation has been received about the installation of main switch on main line in the factory premises and in its absence release of 97 H.P. load was not advisable from the point of safety. I Prior to that letter, letter dated 27th March, 1993 was written to the Company informing that no intimation has been received about the installation of switching system and in its absence the Board was facing great difficulty in releasing the said connection. The Complainant was requested by that letter to complete the LT switching arrangement and inform accordingly. The Complainant did not bother to comply with those letters and did not even sent any reply to the Board.

FROM the counter and the letters produced by the Opposite Party it appears that the Complainant himself was not interested in taking electric connection at the stage when the Board was ready to give supply of power. Perhaps, by that time, the Complainant might be finding it difficult to run his project profitably.

WE have carefully gone through the file and the documents produced by the parties and we are of opinion that in the present case the delay in supply of power to the unit of the Complainant was occasioned due to the fact that the sub-station at the industrial estate, Gajraula was under construction and when the construction was completed the transformer was not available and when the sub-station was energised it was found that the Complainant had not installed the LT switching system, Consequently, the delay was mainly on the part of the Complainant. In the light of the above observations, we hold that there has been no deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board. Hence, we do not find any force in the present Complaint and accordingly we dismiss it with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.