MURARI TEA INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the amended provisions of clause 22(a) vide its resolution No. 24 dated 7-2-91 of Assam State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to a 'ASEB'.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding this petition briefly are that the petitioner being the partnership firm carried on business of manufacture and sale of black tea. Suddenly the Asstt. Executive Engineer, REC Sub-Division, ASEB, Tinsukia issued a letter dated 3-8-92 to the petitioner's firm informing that on checking of connected load at the petitioner's garden on 4-7-92, it was found that the total connected load was 266 K.W. instead of 240 K.W. i.e. 26 K.W. excess than the connected load and that as per the terms and conditions an assessment bill for excess connected load for 26 K.W. amounting to Rs. 39,312.60 vide bill No. 285/87 wasalso enclosed for payment. The petitioner vide his letter dated 4-8-92 requested the Executive Engineer-respondent No. 2 to visit the Tea Factory of the petitioner for physical verification, as in fact no physical verification was done as alleged in the letter dated 3-8-92 and to verify whether in fact there was any excess load and denied that there was any excess connected load of 26 K.W. But without considering the said letter of the petitioner, the A.S.E.B. issued another electricity bill dated 12-12-94 raising the demand of earlier amount of malpractise amount to Rs. 39,312.00 as well as surcharge of Rs. 53,071.20 against the aforesaid amount of 39,312.00 calculating the same at the rate of 5% p.m. for 27th months. The petitioner submitted a cheque dated 23-12-94 towards the said bill for Rs. 70.910.26 under protest and duress of disconnection. But the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner if the entire amount is not paid, the electric connection of the petitioner would be disconnected for the act of malpractice i.e. for excess connecting load by 26 K.W under Section 23(e) of the terms and conditions of (Supply), 1988. The petitioner was made liable for such payment as compensation as per the amended clause 22(a)(iii) which adds "Tea, Coffee and Rubber Gardens besides, "Industry/Bulk" along with the surcharge at the rate of Rs. 5% p.m. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr N. N. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by J. Chutia, for A.S.E.B.