MODERN STEEL INDUSTRIES GHAZIABAD Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein as under:

(2.) The fact remains that the petitioner is a partnership concern, engaged in the manufacture of Steel Strips. For the purpose of manufacturing in the Rolling Mills, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the U.P. State Electricity Board on 6th March, 1987 for supply of electrical energy of 580 KVA load on 11 KV supply voltage. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for an additional power load of 220 KVA, which was sanctioned and an other agreement was entered into between the parties on 7th August, 1989 for the total supply of 800 KVA. Thereafter the petitioner applied for further additional load of 700 KVA, which was sanctioned by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, respondent No. 2 and the agreement in regard there to was entered into on 14th October, 1993. The old line of 800 KVA was dismantled and the old meter was removed. New line and equipments for supplying 1500 KVA load were erected and new Sangamo Meter No. 2963332 was fixed on the spot and supply of 1500 KVA on 33 KV was commenced on 14th September, 1994. Thereafter on 29th June, 1996 the petitioner applied for reduction of load which was allowed by the respondent No. 3 and the agreement was entered into on 1 st July, 1996. The load was reduced but no change in line, equipments, meter etc. had taken place on the spot and the supply, which was already continuing with effect from 14th September, 1994, continued till 18th September, 1996 when the respondent No. 3 temporarily disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioner allegedly on account of non-payment of electricity dues of bill dated August, 1996. After disconnection of the petitioner's supply on 18th September, 1996 it never moved for reconnection rather applied for permanent disconnection and the petitioner never consumed the electricity after 18th September, 1996. The representatives of the petitioner immediately thereafter personally met the respondent No. 3, who, however, maintained the position that six months Minimum Consumption Guarantee charge (for short MCG) will be chargeable after 18th September, 1996 allegedly in view of the fact that the agreement for load reduction was entered into on 1st July, 1996.

(3.) According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by the said irrational and unreasonable stand taken by the respondents, matter was represented before the respondent No. 3 and entire history relating to the said dispute was brought to the notice of the authorities. While all this exercise was going on, and despite the fact that the representations made against notices issued to the petitioner were still pending before the said authority, the petitioner was shocked and dismayed to learn that the respondents had issued a certificate under Section 5 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 for recovery of Rs. 16,19,026.00 alongwith interest and other charges as arrears of land revenue and ultimately a citation was issued. Against the citation the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner. The petitioner moved a fresh representation and the respondents rejected the same without disclosing any reason. Hence, the petitioner filed present writ petition.