MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the scheme dated 30.11.1993 (Annexure P-5) prepared by respondent No. 2 Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) the same being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the demand raised as a consequence thereof vide letter dated 7.2.1994 (Annexure P-4). A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for directing the respondents to release the additional load of electric connection.

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner is running his tubewell with 7.5 H.P. electricity motor from connection bearing No. 22-454. He applied for extention of electric load from 7.5 H.P. to 20. H.P. on 21.4.1993 and deposited a sum of Rs. 270/- vide receipt dated 21.4.1993 (Annexure P-1). The request of the petitioner was approved and recommended by respondent No. 3, the Sub Divisional Officer, to the concerned Executive Engineer who in turn accorded technical approval vide letter dated 28.4.1993 (Annexure P-2). asking respondent No. 3 to sanction the estimate at this level being within his competency. Respondent No. 3 issued a demand notice vide letter No. 76 dated 31.8.1993, whereupon the petitioner submitted the report after completing all requirements on 7.9.1993. Thereafter respondent No. 3 approved the case of the petitioner and granted necessary sanction vide letter dated 5.10.1993 (Annexure P-3). However the additional load as approved and sanctioned was not released. The petitioner has levelled some oblique motive on the part of certain officers of the office in not releasing the additional load.

(3.) Vide letter dated 30.11.1993 the respondent Board issued a scheme for regularisation of extension in load on existing tubewell consumers by levying of special charges mentioned therein. Accordingly, a demand letter (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,500/- on account of the extension of load prayed for by him. Now the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said scheme and the demand raised as a consequence thereof with a direction to the respondents to release the additional load without the payment of any special levy as mentioned in the scheme.