DEBDAS ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.B. Sengupta, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. N.C. Paul, learned State counsel appearing for die Respondent Nos. l to 4. Also heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5.

(2.) The Petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the demand of the Respondents as reflected in the duplicate passbook issued to him on 11 October 1999, for Rs. 35,524.60P towards electricity charges for the period from 2 August 1984 to 13 February 1998, and Rs. 35,064.60P as penalty for nonpayment of said amount, totalling a sum of Rs. 70,589.20P. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondent authorities to provide new commercial connection to the chemist shop belonging to him for which he submitted the application on 4.5.1998. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition for striking out the provision contained in clase 28 of Tripura Electricity Supply Conditions 1998.

(3.) It has been contended by the writ Petitioner in the writ petition that an electricity connection was provided to the Petitioner's premises in the year 1971 which was rented out to a tenant with the A/c No. 16/B3-88(A) and thereafter another domestic connection was also provided to the Petitioner in the yearl987 with the A/c No. 16/B3-88(1). According to the Petitioner, though it was his responsibility to pay the electricity charges in respect of A/c No. 16/B3-88(A), since the said connection was to the premises rented out and as per agreement the tenant was to pay the electricity charges, he was under the impression that the said charges were duly paid by the tenant. But when he received the demand notice dated 17 March 1997 for a sum of Rs. 15,001.80P for the period from 25 November 1990 to 28 September 1996 in respect of said account, he filed a respresentation on 9 May 1997 before the Respondent authorities requesting disconnection in the said A/c owing to the failure of his tenant to pay the electricity consumption charges. Thereafter, the Respondent authority by the communication dated 20 April 1998 informed the Petitioner about the disconnection with effect from 30 March 1998 through the meter, for which A/c No. 16/B3-88(A) was provided. By the said communication, the Petitioner was also asked to show-cause as to why action would not be taken against him for using the domestic connection for commercial purpose through the meter provided in respect of A/c No. 16/B3-88(l). The Petitioner, on 4 May 1998 had submitted the show-cause reply admitting using the domestic connection for a limited commercial purpose, i.e. for the chemist shop. The Petitioner, on 4 May 1998 had also applied for commercial connection for the shop, which, however, has not been granted. The Respondent authority, thereafter, by the communication dated 22 August 1998 rejected the contention of the Petitioner and asked the latter to pay outstanding dues payable against A/c No. 16/B3-88(A), which admittedly has not been paid till that date in spite of the demand notice dated 17 March 1997 for a sum of Rs. 15,001.80P. The electricity supply to the Petitioner's premises through A/c No. 16/B3-88(1) was also disconnected on 7 October 1999 in view of the violation of terms and conditions of Tripura Electric Supply Condition 1998(in short, Supply Condition 1998), i.e. for using domestic connection for the commercial purpose. According to the Petitioner, as the passbook in respect of A/c No. 16/ B3-88(A) was with the tenant, he made an application for issuing a duplicate one, which was given to him on 11 October 1999, wherefrom he, for the first time, came to know that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 70,589.20P for the period from 2 August 1984 to 13 February 1998, inclusive of the penalty charged was outstanding. The Petitioner, on receipt of the duplicate passbook, submitted a representation before the Sub-divisional Officer (Electrical) on 20 December 1999 intimating the latter that he never received any demand of Rs. 35,524.60P, as has been shown as due in the said passbook. By said representation, the Petitioner also requested the said authority to furnish him with the break-up of the dues, which are stated to be payable by him, but such request, is yet to be acceded to. Against the said amount of Rs. 70,589.20P, an amount of Rs. 14,116/-, however, has been reqlized by the Respondent from the Petitioner.