BASED ALI Vs. W B S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of the petitioners, who have filed these writ petitions, seeks supply of electricity from the Board to energies his submersible pump. The petitioners of the writ petitions, being W.P. 13691 (W) of 2000, W.P. 13459 (W) of 2003, W.P. 14461 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15083 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15328 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15410 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15509 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15575 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15784 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16157 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16531 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16532 (W) of 2003, W.P. 17795 (W) of 2003, W.P. 18541 (W) of 2003, W.P. 18541 (W) of 2003, W.P. 20085 (W) of 2003 and W.P. 442 (W) of 2004, had applied for supply of electricity, the Board gave a quotation to each one of them, but the petitioners are contending that the quotations are exorbitant. They are contending that the Board is not entitled to claim the cost of the transformer and the expenses connected with installation of the transformer from the consumers. That appears to be the principal dispute in the said writ petitions. Against the applications made by the petitioners in W.P. 14509 (W) of 2003, W.P. 15097 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16033 to 16036 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16289 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16475 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16488 to 16490 (W) of 2003, W.P. 16521 (W) of 2003; W.P. 17557 to 17559 (W) of 2003, W.P. 18518 (W) of 2003, W.P. 18581 (W) of 2003, W.P. 2021 (W) of 2003, W.P. 138 (W) of 2004, W.P. 172 (W) of 2004, W.P. 228 (W) of 2004, W.P. 310 (W) of 2004, W.P. 536 (W) of 2004, W.P. 540 (W) of 2004, W.P. 548 (W) of 2004,W.P. 550 (W) of 2004, W.P. 551 (W) of 2004, W.P. 554 to 555 (W) of 2004, W.P. 557 to 558 (W) of 2004, W.P. 729 to 730 (W) of 2004 and W.P. 1200 (W) of 2004, the Board has issued quotations to the petitioners and the petitioners have discharged their obligations in terms of such quotations but the Board has not effected supply to those petitioners principally on the ground that according to the present policy of the Board each submersible pump shall be connected with one 10 KV transformer and accordingly, those quotations, which had not taken into account the cost of one such transformer and incidental costs for installation thereof, are required to the revised and fresh quotations are required to be issued and the petitioners are required to comply with the terms of such fresh quotations.

(2.) The principal question that, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the Board can claim from a prospective consumer the cost of transformer and incidental cost for installation of transformer ?

(3.) During the course of hearing it transpired that it was brought to the notice of the Board that rampant pilferage of electricity is being committed by a few evil people for the purpose of energizing submersible pumps. In order to stop such pilferage the Board decided that steps should be taken to reach electricity to the prospective customers seeking supply of electricity to energies submersible pumps at the bare minimum expenditure. The Board ascertained that in order to run submersible pumps the customer is required to have supply of 3.5 KV to 5.5 KV electricity, inasmuch as the submersible pumps require in between 3.5 H.P. and 5.5 H.P., except for grey areas where the requirement may go upto 7.5 H.P. It is the case of the Board, as submitted to Court by its Engineer, who appeared in person, that on the basis of the specification of the Board, the Board has been able to locate suppliers of 10 KV transformers and efforts are being made to locate suppliers of less than 10 KV transformers. It was thus submitted that the Board has taken a decision to install a 10 KV transformer for each submersible pump connection.