M/S Narian Rice Mills v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (149) Date of decision:- 27.11.2025 M/s Narian Rice Mills ... Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. D.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Archana, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore electricity connection to petitioner's account bearing No. F42BR0100004. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that an electricity connection has been issued to the petitioner by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for running a rice sheller. He asserts that petitioner has been regularly paying the electricity bills, but due to financial losses, there was a default and electricity connection was disconnected. Counsel submits that petitioner has submitted representations dated 10.09.2025, Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively, for re-connection and also submitted a complaint dated 14.10.2025, Annexure P-5, but the connection has not been restored. Counsel ₹ submits that as per the respondents, a total amount of 10,63,142/- is due,

-2- ₹ against which petitioner had already deposited a sum of 4,00,000/- on 14.11.2025 in deference to an interim order passed by this Court. Counsel has also filed an affidavit dated 27.11.2025, executed by the petitioner, which is taken on record, wherein he has, inter-alia, deposed as under:- "3.

That the deponent undertakes to clear the remaining outstanding arrears of electricity connection in monthly installments of Rs 80,000/- per month. The deponent further undertakes to clear the monthly electricity on or before the stipulated due date along with the installments of outstanding arrears of electricity connection."

3.

Although, notice of motion has not been issued, but on advance intimation, respondents have put in appearance and have filed a reply. The objection taken by the respondents has been summed up by them in para 9, which is reproduced hereunder:- "9.

That, furthermore, the connection of the petitioner cannot be restored without payment of restoration charges. Further as per the calculation sheet of the answering department, an amount of Rs. 10,63,142 (Ten Lakhs Sixty-three thousand and one hundred and forty two Rupees) is pending qua the petitioner, which includes Total outstanding amount up to 20.03.2025, total interest (1.5% per month) and fix charges March (11 days) and October (31 days) 2025 (two months). Further as per the rule 46 of the PSERC (Electricity Supply Code, Standards of performance and related matters) Regulations, 2024, the connection of the petitioner can be restored only subject to the payment of the above said amount. The copy of the calculation sheet is annexed herein as Annexure R-4."

4.

It is evident from the stand taken by the respondents that the sole reason for disconnection was non-payment of dues, which have swelled to ₹10,63,142/-, inclusive of interest. Respondents have further stated that petitioner is also liable to pay re-connection charges, which counsel for

-3petitioner has instructions to state that they shall be duly deposited. 5.

In view of the above, there can be no hindrance in restoration of electricity connection. Accordingly, respondents are directed to restore electricity supply to connection bearing account No. F42BR0100004 and ensure a regular supply to the petitioner, subject to deposit of electricity charges as well as arrears as undertaken by petitioner in his affidavit dated 27.11.2025. Needful be done within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

6.

It is clarified that in case the petitioner fails to make the payment as undertaken by him, respondents shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with rules and regulations of PSPCL.

7.

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 27.11.2025 Kamal Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No