The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for persistently raking up an already adjudicated issue concerning payment obligations. The apex court has imposed a hefty cost of Rs 65 lakh on PSPCL for its repeated attempts to evade its responsibilities.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice Aravind Kumar, directed PSPCL to pay Nabha Power Limited (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited a sum of Rs 40 lakh and Rs 25 lakh, respectively. The court’s decision comes in light of the continuous litigations initiated by PSPCL, which the bench observed as an endeavor to “wriggle out of its obligation.”
Detailing the background, disputes had emerged between Nabha Power Limited and PSPCL over the recovery of monthly tariff deductions. These disputes led to proceedings under the Electricity Act, 2003, which escalated from the Regulatory Commission to the Supreme Court. In a judgment dated 05.10.2017, the Supreme Court had directed PSPCL to make certain payments to NPL. Despite the clear directive, NPL was not paid the due amount, leading to further litigations, including contempt proceedings.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, stated,
“We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order, innocuous as it may seem, is not sustainable and this is yet another endeavour of the respondent to wriggle out of its obligation under the judgment dated 05.10.2017, repeatedly explained by various orders. This kind of endeavour can neither be appreciated nor left without consequences thereof.”
The court further emphasized that the core issue, which revolved around the pricing of coal, had already been settled in the 2017 judgment. Yet, PSPCL sought to revisit the same issue, leading to unnecessary legal battles.
In a bid to set a precedent against such practices, the court remarked,
“We, thus, feel that some example must be set in such cases and the appeals are liable to be allowed with costs, which were actually incurred by the appellants. It was the aforesaid, which was the reason for us to call upon the parties to file the actual bill of costs.”
The court’s decision to impose costs is seen as a strong message against unnecessary litigations and attempts to bypass judicial directives.