PSEB seeks Rs 94-cr refund from Rlys
Tribune News Service, November 28 2009
Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh
A day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders made it clear that the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) would not have to pay to the Railways surcharge on freight, the board has decided to seek refund of Rs 94 crore.

The amount is lying with the Railways as security.

PSEB chairman Harinder Singh Brar said it was their rightful dues as the award was in their favour and they would be adopting the prescribed procedure for getting the amount back. For the purpose, the PSEB was already in touch with the advocate-general’s office.

The dispute before the court was whether the PSEB was liable to pay surcharge on the freight to the Railways for period prior to July 27, 2002.

Justice P.K. Bahri of the Delhi High Court, appointed as an arbitrator in the matter, announced the award on November 21, 2003, holding that the PSEB was not liable to pay the surcharge.

Subsequent to the award, the Railways board raised objections before Patiala district judge. But the arguments put forth on behalf of the Railways did not find favour with the district judge and the petition was dismissed on May 21, 2005.

Following the dismissal orders, the Railways once again moved the high court on several grounds, including jurisdiction.

As the appeal came up for hearing before Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, Pavit Mattewal appearing on behalf of the electricity board argued the objection to jurisdiction was not raised at the stage of arbitration.

As such, it was not within the rights of the Railways to take up the plea at the stage of the appeal. Mattewal argued that the appeal, as such, was liable to be dismissed. After hearing both parties, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur dismissed the petition in the electricity board’s favour.

Justice Nirmaljit Kaur observed: “There is nothing in the award requiring intervention by the court. Thus, the award is in accordance with the dispute referred to it.

The arbitrator had the jurisdiction to interpret the contract and accept the scheme…. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.”