SHEO ROCE MILL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Industry has been engaged in business carrying out for the' manufacture of various items through its Roller Flour Mill. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice as well as the proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the U. P. Sarkari Bijli Vyavasaya Sanstha (Deon Ki Vasooli Adhiniyam) 1958 for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs. 82,091.65 paise and interest in lieu of electrical dues. The amount in question contains the amount charged under the minimum consumption guarantee against the contractual consumption load of 119.9 KW. The dispute in question relates to the period commencing from October 198 3/04/1984.

(2.) The factual matrix borne out from the record is that partnership firm was having electrical connection of 150 HP. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for continuous uninterrupted supply of electricity to its Mill sometime in the year 1971. The petitioner had also deposited Rs. 23,266.00 to lay down an independent electricity line to its factory for continuous uninterrupted supply of electricity to meet out the petitioner's requirement to provide the contractual load of 119.9 KW of electricity. Opposite party No. 3 had installed a transformer of 15 KVA capacity, which was sufficient to meet out the petitioner's requirement. On 2/10/1983 the transformer installed by the opposite party No. 3 was burnt. Instead of replacing the burnt transformer of 150 KVA by another transformer of the same load, the opposite party No. 3 on 10/10/1983 had installed a new transformer of 63 KVA capacity. While installing the transformer of 63 KVA by letter dated 10/10/1983 the Junior Engineer of the Division concerned (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) instructed the petitioner that electricity shall not be useod for any purpose except light and fan and some works of machine for the maintenance job till the replacement of transformer by a suitable one. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner's Mill was closed down for the period commencing from October 198 3/04/1984. This fact has been supported by certificate issued by Senior Marketing Inspector, Bahraich dated 17/10/1984 filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The petitioner has submitted that the opposite party has sent bills, filed as Annexure-4 and Annexure-7 to the writ petition containing an amount assessed on the basis of minimum consumption load and contractual demand of 119.9 KVA assuming that the transformer during that period was having capacity of 150 KVA. The transformer of the capacity of 63 KVA was replaced by another transformer of 250 KVA on 2/05/1984. It is evident from the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 2 4/05/1984 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

(3.) We have heard Sri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary and the Chief Standing Counsel representing the opposite parties.