AWADESH S PANDEY Vs. TATA POWER CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for electric connection from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 commissioned meter No. 2759592 on the petitioner s premises on 3rd January, 2003 for connected load of 125 HP (93.25 KW). The petitioner started using electricity since 30th August, 2003. Bills for for the period from 30th August, 2003 to 30th October, 2003 and also subsequent bills till November, 2005 were sent to the petitioner indicating multiplying factor of one. Respondent No. 1 around November, 2003 during energy audit observed that petitioner was billed by applying incorrect multiplying factor since beginning, the correct multiplying factor being 40. Supplementary bill was preferred in January, 2006 for Rs. 12,33,328/-.

(3.) The petitioner contested the said bill by filing a complaint before Consumer Redressal Forum on 06.03.2006. On 25.03.2006 as the petitioner had not paid electric dues in terms of the bill, respondent No. 1 issued notice of disconnection but withdrew the same. On 05.05.2006 the Consumer Redressal Forum passed an order against petitioner against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman. The Electricity Ombudsman partly allowed the appeal and directed to recover amended dues under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as "Electricity Act". Respondent No. 1 on 24.07.2006 made demand on the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 11,48,844/-. On 24.07.2006 itself, a notice of disconnection was issued demanding arrears of Rs. 13,17,141=13 paisa after some correspondence as no relief was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition (L) No. 1866 of 2004 challenging the notice of disconnection. In the meantime on 16.08.2006 respondent No. 1 amended earlier demand as the demand was not in conformity with the order of the Electricity Ombudsman. As petition became infructous, liberty was granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh petition. The petitioners once again by letter of 30th August, 2006 called respondent No. 1 and 2 to withdraw their claim. The petitioner received a third notice of disconnection issued by respondent No. 1 on 04.09.2006 and consequently the present petition.