Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 20 March 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Ambey Industries
  • Respondents: Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and others, including respondent No.6, Lord Mahavir Industries Pvt. Ltd.
  • Case Number: 116 CWP-4732-2026
  • Petition: Filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s order dated 22.12.2025.
  • Background: Ambey Industries had earlier sought electricity connection from PSPCL in 2022, resulting in a dedicated 66 kV line set up at its cost. The dispute arose when PSPCL released a connection to Lord Mahavir Industries by tapping the same 66 kV line. The Commission rejected Ambey’s claim, holding that the tapping was permissible under the Supply Code, 2014 (the “2014 Code”).
  • Key Dates & Notices:
  • Demand notice to Lord Mahavir Industries issued on 09.05.2024 (valid for six months, with two possible three‑month extensions).
  • Lord Mahavir Industries satisfied the demand notice on 05.02.2025.
  • PSPCL was required to render the connection within 90 days of satisfaction, i.e., by 05.05.2025.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: Supreme Court judgment in Utility Users' Welfare Association v. State of Gujarat & others (2018) 6 SCC 21, which mandates the presence of a Judicial Member in any adjudicatory function of a State Electricity Commission.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: The impugned order was passed without a Judicial Member, violating the Supreme Court judgment.
  • Respondents’ Position: Acknowledged the current availability of a Judicial Member but could not refute the claim that none was present at the time of the impugned order.

Commission Findings (as recorded in the impugned order)

  • The feasibility clearance for Lord Mahavir Industries’ connection, dated 15.12.2023, and the demand notice (09.05.2024) pre‑date the commencement of the Supply Code, 2024; therefore, the 2014 Code governs the tapping.
  • The 66 kV line feeding Ambey Industries is an “idle Aman Alloy line” and not a dedicated line; PSPCL recovered only the proportionate cost of the common portion of the line and the bay.
  • Regulation 9.1.1(x) of the Supply Code, 2014 permits tapping of an HT/EHT line whose entire cost (including breaker/bay) has been paid by a consumer, provided the subsequent consumer pays the entire cost up to his premises and the proportionate cost of the common portion.
  • Since Ambey Industries did not pay the entire cost of the line and bay, it is not eligible for a refund of the proportionate cost recovered from the subsequent consumer.
  • The Commission noted that the term “dedicated line” is not defined for voltage levels exceeding 11 kV; therefore, the line cannot be treated as dedicated merely because part of the cost was borne by the original consumer.
  • The Commission concluded that the distribution licensee (PSPCL) may shift load between feeders as required by system needs.

Court Reasoning & Decision

  • The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that a person of law (a Judicial Member) must be part of the Commission bench for any adjudicatory function.
  • It observed that at the time the impugned order was passed, the required Judicial Member was not available, rendering the order ultra vires.
  • Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2025.
  • The Court directed the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, allowing the parties to raise all issues before the Commission.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned Commission order is nullified.
  • The Commission must re‑consider the matter with a Judicial Member present and issue a fresh order.
  • No substantive comment on the merits of the tapping or cost‑recovery issues was made by the Court.

Topics: Electricity Regulation, Judicial Review