PROF. RAM PRAKASH Vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction against the Respondent, to quash the demand raised under the Assessment Bill of Rs. 55,191/ - which was reduced to Rs. 38,650/ - plus LPSC of Rs. 1160. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of a residential house bearing No. B -48, South Extension Part -I, New Delhi. An electric connection was sanctioned as New K No. 2540C7270562 CRN NO. 2540020364 of 1KW for domestic purpose for the first floor built on a plot measuring 200 sq. yards. The said floor has five rooms of about 100 sq. ft each, a kitchen and a toilet. The petitioner has been regularly paying his electricity consumption bills. On 19.06.2009, the petitioner received an Inspection Report BR -MD -OA 000812 dated 08.06.2009 alleging that the said electric connection was being used for non -domestic purpose. The petitioner made a representation dated 22.06.2009 to the Chief Commercial Officer stating that there is no misuse, the premises had been partly let out on long term lease and partly on month -to -month basis for residential use. The Enforcement Staff, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi, instead of examining the merit of the representation made by the petitioner, handed over a provisional assessment bill of Rs. 55,191/ - to the petitioner on 24.06.2009, which was to be paid by 10.07.2009. Under protest by petitioner against the demand of Rs. 55,191/ -, the petitioner was called for personal discussion on 09.07.2009 before the assessing officer. After the said discussion, the assessing officer reserved the petitioner's case for order. The petitioner also met one Sh. Arvind Gujral, Head of the Enforcement Section. The petitioner requested Mr. Gujral for objectively examining his case and suggested that an inspection of the premises be conducted. After hearing the petitioner, the Head of Enforcement Section informed the petitioner that use of the premises as paying guest hostel amounts to misuse of domestic connection even though the premises were being used for residential purpose. The petitioner suggested that an opportunity be granted to him on the ground of natural justice to change the domestic connection to commercial connection before imposing the misuse charges at the penal rate. The Head of Enforcement Section rejected the petitioner's suggestion and stated that he could instead grant petitioner a reduction of 30% in the penal amount. Thereafter, the petitioner received the copy of speaking order of the Assessing Officer on 01.08.2009, confirming the alleged misuse of the premises in question and a final assessment bill for tariff violation of Rs. 55,191/ - was handed over to the petitioner to be paid by 10.08.2009 with threat of disconnection of electricity supply in case the amount was not paid. However, the head of enforcement section reduced the amount of the bill to Rs. 38,650 + LPSC of Rs. 1160/ - to be paid by 13.08.2009.

(2.) THE petitioner who appears in person submits that no show cause notice was served on him and the provisional demand dated 20.06.2009 was raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and was finalized on 30.07.2009 after consideration of petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2009. It is submitted by the petitioner that under sub -section (3) of Section 126 it is mandatory that the final order of provisional assessment of electricity charges must be decided within 30 days. Prof. Ram Prakash further submits that there is no provision for extension of time, therefore, the demand raised by respondent is time barred. Sub -section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act is reproduced below: -

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that the inspecting team of the respondent resorted to dubious means to extract higher revenue by classifying the petitioner's premises under the misuse category. It is further submitted that the inspecting team of the respondent found the board titled at the petitioner's premises as "Paying Guest Accommodation for Ladies" and mislabeled the said premises as "PG Hostel" and booked a case of misuse alleging "common office with kitchen" against petitioner.