SUSHILA CEMENT P LTD Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WESCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner carries on business of manufacturing Cement and avails power supplied by WESGO. For the purpose of electricity tariff the petitioner has been categorised as a Large Scale Industry and the petitioner pays tariff in two parts demand charges and energy charges. For the month of Oct. 2003 the meter on the basis of which billing for supply of electricity is made was found to be defective. The Executive Engineer, R.E.D. Rajgangpur, WESCO of Orissa worked out the bill for demand charges and energy charges for the month of Oct. 2003 on the basis of average meter reading for the months of June, July and Sept, 2003 and raised a bill on the petitioner for the month of Oct. 2003. Since the petitioner did not pay the bill for Oct. 2003 power supply was disconnected- Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 20-1-2004 and on 3-2-2004 this Court while issuing notice in the writ petition passed orders that in the meanwhile the agreement of the petitioner with WESCO for supply of electricity will not. be terminated. On 4-2-2004 the agreement between the petitioner and WESCO for supply of electricity was terminated invoking clause 17 of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 1998 to the effect that if the power supply remains disconnected for a period of two months for non payment of charges or dues and no effective steps are taken by the consumer for removing the cause of disconnection and for restoration of power supply, the agreement of the licensee with the consumer for power supply shall be deemed to have been terminated on expiry of the said period of two months. The petitioner by way of amendment to the writ petition has also challenged the said termination of agreement of the petitioner.

(2.) It appears on a reading of the impugned bill and the calculations in Annexure 2 to the writ petition that the Executive Engineer, R.E.D. Rajgangpur, WESCO of Orissa has worked out the bill for Oct. 2003 on the basis of the average meter reading for the months of Sept., July and June, 2003. Mr. Patnaik. learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that this has been done in accordance with Clause G0(l) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 1998. Mr. Patnaik further explained that under the said Clause 60(1) the average, meter reading for the corsecutive three billing periods preceding the building in which the defective meter was notised has to be taken into consideration and in this case since the power supply to the industry of the petitioner was disconnected during Oct. 2003, the average meter reading for the billing period of three months, i.e. Sept., July and June of 2003 preceding the billing for the month of Oct. 2003 in which the defect was noticed has been taken into consideration in the impugned disputed bill for the month of Oct. 2003.

(3.) Mr. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently submitted that the production of Cement in the industry of the petitioner during Oct.2003 was very low as would be clear from the clearance of finished products on payment of excise duty as reflected in the returns and documents filed before the Excise Department.