Petition No. 280/2005.

           In the matter of: Contempt petition under UPERA 1999 for willful
           disobedience of Hon’ble Commission’s order dated 24.9.2004(Pet.
           No. 191/2004) and order dated 4.3.2005 (Pet. No. 214/2004)


           In the matter of:

                     M/s Rathi Udyog Limited …
                     C-4, South of G.T.Road, Ghaizabad

                  1. Chairman and Managing Director,.
                     U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. .
                     Shakti Bhawan,
                     14th Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
                  2. Shri Alok Sinha, Managing .Director,
                      Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
                      UPPCL, Victoria Street,

                                                             …. Respondent


      The petition was heard by the Commission on 10.8.2005.

       The respondents were represented by Shri Alok Sinha, MD, PVVNL, Shri
Bahadur Singh, EE, EUDDV, Ghaziabad, Shri A.Agarwal, GM, UPPCL, Shri
D.D.Chopra, Advocate, Shri S.P.Bose Advocate and Shri Vijay Dixit Advocate
while the petitioner was neither present himself nor he was represented by his

      Petitioner M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd. Ghaziabad has moved the present
contempt petition No. 280/2005 against MD, PVVNL, Meerut and UPPCL for non
compliance of Commission’s order dated 24.9.2004 (Pet. No. 191/2004) and
4.3.2005 (Pet. No. 214/2004), in respect of M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs UPPCL.

              In this context it is to be intimated that M/s Rathi Udyog had applied
for additional load at their existing premises i.e. A-3, Industrial area South GT
Road Ghaziabad and new connection at C4, GT Road Ghaziabad as per the
details contained in the following table but the concerned officer of UPPCL rejected
the applications on the plea that the said loads cannot be sanctioned since there
are arrears against the consumer but the consumer regularly pleaded that the
arrears in question have been stayed by Hon’ble High Court:-
      Sl.no. Load                       Purpose                Type        Date        of
      1       2500KVA at the site of Reheating furnace ( Additional        1.12.2003
              existing connection of (25 ton)-Rolling Mill load
      2       3500KVA at the site of Induction furnace Additional          15.5.2004
              existing connection of (5ton.)                   load
      3.      5000KVA at a new Induction furnace New                       26.8.2004
              site,   Rathi    Udyog (8ton.)                   connection
           The matter was heard in the commission and the operating portion of
    the order of the Commission dated 24.9.2004 in this regard reads as under:-
                      “The dues cannot be recovered at the present stage by way of any
              instrument of realization as well as applying any payment security
              arrangement like bank guarantee etc. since the same have been stayed by
              the Hon’ble High Court and the petitioner cannot be denied the facility of
              additional load of 2500KVA for Rolling Mill and 3500KVA for Induction
              furnace at the present site at A-3, South of GT Road, Ghaziabad as well as
              new connection of 5000 KVA at C–4 G.T.Road Ghaziabad (new premises)
              solely on account of this. Therefore the letter dated 20.5.2004 issued by E.E.,
              EUDD, Ghaziabad and letter of M.D.Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
              Limited, Meerut dated 20.9.2004 are set aside and the licensee is directed to
              sanction additional load and new load as mentioned herein above.

              If the cases of outstanding dues are finally decided by Hon’ble High Court
              in favour of the licensee, the petitioner will be liable to pay dues along with
              interest at the prevailing deposit rate of SBI with effect from the date of
              agreement in respect of additional loads or grant of new connection
              whichever is earlier.”
         Further to the above, it is to be added that additional load of 5000 KVA
was sanctioned by MD,PVVNL on 23.2.2005 subject to the condition that the
party shall submit bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of dues stayed by
Hon’ble High Court. But Commission after considering the above sanction
issued the following order on 4.3.2005.
               1. That there is at present no requirement of balance 2500KVA additional
              load for Rolling Mills at the existing connection at A-3,Industrial
              Estate,Ghaziabad .

              2. The O.M. No.1393 Pa Aa/Pa Vi Vi Ni Li . May. /Va / LS /May. Rathi Udyog
              Limited dated 23.2.2005 containing the orders for the sanction of 5000KVA
              for Induction Furnace at C-4,GT Road,Ghaziabad in respect of M/s Rathi
              Udyog Limited is in contradiction with the para (i) of the Commissions
              decision contained in its order dated 24.9.2004,hence it may be revised to
              the extent of non inclusion of the clause regarding deposit of bank
             guarantee equivalent to the amount of arrears stayed by the Hon’ble High
       Inspite of the above, MD,PVVNL kept the matter pending clarifications
from the Commission. The matter was considered by the Commission and MD,
PVVNL was again directed to ensure the compliance of Commission’s order
dated 4.3.2005 vide Commission’s letter dated 2.6.2005 but still no compliance
was made.
       In the mean time, the petition mentioned above was moved by M/s Rathi
Udyog with the following prayer:

      1. Sri. Alok Sinha, MD, PVVNL be suspended against the willful
         disobedience of Commission’s order dated 24.9.2004 as well as
         4.3.2005 and the State of UP be directed to initiate strict disciplinary
         action against the officer for willful disobedience of Commission’s order
      2. License of PVVNL as a subsidiary unit of UPPCL be suspended for
         disobedience of Commission’s order if it has been granted status of a
      3. The part of the license of respondent no.2 i.e. UPPCL in regard to
         PVVNL as a subsidiary unit, be suspended which had been granted to
         them under UPERA,1999, be suspended.

      Apart from the above, it is to be additionally informed that MD,PVVNL had
moved a review petition on behalf of UPPCL in respect of Commission’s order
dated 4.3.2005 in petition no.214/2004 on 25.7.2005 which was time barred
hence, the same was returned back to MD,PVVNL vide Commission’s order
no.UPERC/Secy/ANG/2005-461 dated 3.8.2005.

      At the outset the Commission expressed it’s displeasure on the exfacie
observation of non compliance by MD, PVVNL in respect of Commission’s order
dated 24.9.2004 in petition No. 191/2004 and 4.3.2005 in the petition No.
214/2004, M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs UPPCL in spite of specific clarifications
against the various issues raised by MD, PVVNL communicated vide letter No.
UPERC/Secy/F-31A/2005-207 dated 2.6.2005 of UPERC.

        Further the Commission asked the respondents why the review petition
was filed late by MD, PVVNL as a consequence of which the same was time
barred and rendered nugatory and returned to MD, PVVNL vide Commission’s
letter No. UPERC/Secy/ANG/2005-461 dated 3.8.2005 ?

        Shri D.D.Chopra, the learned counsel of the respondent averred that since
the matter was under correspondence and the final clarification to MD, PVVNL
was sent by the Commission on 2.6.2005 the party mistook that the time barrier
of 90 days under section 150 of UPERC (Conduct of Business ) Regulations
2004 will be counted from that date, hence there was delay in filing the review
       The Executive Engineer EUDDV Ghaizabad however informed the
Commission that M/s Rathi Udyog Ghaizabad is not in the know of the present
contempt petition. In this context it was informed to the Commission by Secretary
that the notice NO. UPERC/Secy/2005-183 dated 3.8.2005 for hearing in the
matter on 10.8.2005 was sent to M/s Rathi Udyog Ghaizabad.

       Shri Alok Sinha, MD, PVVNL Meerut informed the Commission that about
10 days back the petitioner i.e. M/s Rathi Udyog promised to submit personal
security bond instead of bank guarantee but latter on the petitioner backed out
showing his inability to attach the copies of their documents related to their
immovable properties along with the personal security bond.

       The Commission, on the basis of records and above mentioned
deliberations and conspicuous non appearance of the petitioner for the hearing in
the matter in spite of notice, concluded that the contempt petition in question
does not garner adequate ground for admittance hence the petition is not

(R D Gupta)                      (P N Pathak)               (Vijoy Kumar)
  Member                           Member                     Chairman

Date: 11.8.2005

To top