MEERUT CEMENT COMPANY PVT LTD Vs. REGIONAL APPELLATE COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K.Jain, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P.Dubey, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board.

(2.) The petitioner was initially sanctioned an electricity connection of 235 KVA in the year 1983 and a formal agreement was entered between the parties to that extent. On 29.7.1994, the electricity load was reduced to 170 KVA and a fresh agreement was executed between the parties. The petitioner applied and was granted a permanent disconnection on 27.8.1994. It has also been stated that the petitioner had cleared all its dues upto 27.8.1994. Subsequently, a demand of Rs. 3 Lacs and odd was issued directing the petitioner to pay this amount. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the authority. Based on the said direction, the petitioner filed a representation, which was duly considered and rejected by the authorities demanding Rs. 2,95,000/- as minimum charges for the period August, 1994 to February, 1995. The authorities contended that since a new agreement was executed on 29.7.1994, the petitioner was required to pay the minimum charges, for six months as required under Section 17(ii) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal which was also dismissed and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the bone contention is whether the provisions of Section 17(ii) or Section 17(vi) is applicable. For facility, the provision of Section 17 of the Regulation is quoted herein: