PIYUSH INDUSTRIES Vs. PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the letter dated 6.5.2002, whereby the bill dated 3.5.2002 has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of Rs.38,430/- and it is prayed by the petitioner to direct respondent to refund the amount of Rs.17,125/-, which was paid pending the dispute against the said bill and the prayer is made to direct the respondent to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It has been stated that pending the petition, the unpaid amount has already been recovered and, therefore, an additional prayer is made by way of amendment, for the refund of Rs.25,904/-.

(2.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is having electricity connection of the then Electricity Board, now the Electricity Company, bearing No.34201/50237/6. The petitioner is having the unit, which is a seasonal unit and it is having connection of 65HP. As per the petitioner, on 4.12.2000, the petitioner intimated to the respondent Board that they are desirous to take benefit of non-use for the year 2001 and, therefore, the form, if any, is to be filled in, the same may be supplied to the petitioner. Immediately, after 10 days, on 14.12.2000, the petitioner intimated the respondent that for the whole year 2001, the petitioner is desirous to keep the unit closed and, therefore, the same may be put as non-use and it may be continued until the next application and as and when, the petitioner is desirous to have the electricity power, the same shall be intimated.

(3.) It appears that acting on the said communication, the respondent issued bill in the month of January February 2001, without charging any minimum amount. However, subsequently, vide letter dated 6.5.2002 Annexure-A (wherein the date is not mentioned, but the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides confirm that the date is 6.5.2002 and by typographical omission, the date has not been mentioned), the petitioner was called upon to pay the minimum charge for the period from January to August 2001 and also for September, 2001, amounting to Rs.38,430/- and simultaneously, the bill is also issued for the said amount. It is under these circumstances, the present petition. It may also be recorded that it has been confirmed by the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides that the year mentioned in the letter for chargeability period of 2001 and not of 2002, but there is a typographical error.