DINESH KUMAR Vs. DELHI VIDTUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the sanction of 20 H.P. Electricity connected load in or about 1990. Subsequently, on voluntary declarations made by the petitioner this was increased to 60 H.P. Admittedly regularisation charges have been levied and collected from the petitioner from time-to-time. With effect from 8th May, 2001 misuser charges have been imposed on the petitioner and these demands have been impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Nandrajog, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied on Entry 3.1 of the Tariff Schedule for the year 2001-2002 which reads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_739_DLT105_2003Html1.htm</FRM> This Entry has to be read with the qualifying Note 9 which reads thus "For industrial consumers having valid MCD licence/Lal Dora Certificate in case of Rural Villages." The contention is that the petitioner's factory admittedly lies in a rural village and this is substantiated by the Lal Dora Certificate. It is also the contention that it is not mandatory that a MCD Licence should accompany the Lal Dora Certificate. On a bare reading of these provisions of the Tariff Schedule, the contention of Counsel for the petitioner is admittedly attractive. Onbehalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on Entry 3.1.1. of the said Tariff Schedule which reads thus: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_739_DLT105_2003Html2.htm</FRM> This entry is qualified by Note 10 which reads thus "Industrial activity without municipal licence including that in urbanised villages, non-conforming areas."

(3.) Mr. Nandrajog vehemently submits that prior to 8th May, 2001 no misuser charges were levied on the petitioner. In my view, this argument does not advance the case of the petitioner. Failure to raise demands permissible in law would not foreclose the right to claim them on a future date.