SONE VANASPTI LIMITED Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Company, for manufacturing Vanaspati Ghee and Refined Oil set up an industrial unit at village Barum, Sone Nagar in the district of Aurangabad in the State of Bihar, which is known as M/s Sone Vanaspati Limited.

(2.) The electricity energy being a primary raw material for manufacturing such product the petitioner-Company entered into an agreement with the Board on 26-3-1993 on a Contract Demand of 1200 KVA. For some unavoidable financial burden, on 30-11-1993 the petitioner requested the Board for reduction of Contract Demand from 1200 KVA to 500 KVA. The Board by its resolution permitted the petitioner-Company to reduce its Contract Demand to 500 KVA, subject to, however, certain conditions. The decision of the Board was communicated to the petitioner on 17-1-1994, which is Annexure-2. Pursuant to this decision a fresh agreement was entered into between the Board and the petitioner on 31-1-1994, which is Annexure-3. After reduction of the Contract Demand to 500 KVA, according to the petitioner, the highest maximum demand of the petitioner was recorded for the year 1994-95 as 425 KVA. This was recorded in February, 1995. After signing of the new agreement no dispute arose for some years and the Engineer (commercial) through his letter dated 18-4-1996 informed the petitioner that as per the Board's decision the transformer installed in the premises was to be changed latest by 31st of May, 1996, by a transformer of capacity within the permissible limit. It was made clear if the transformer was not changed by the said date, bill should be raised as per 33 KV Tariff with effect from 1-6-1996 on the basis of the original Contract Demand of the petitioner i.e. 1200 KVA. Similarly, the Board will also levy surcharge equal to the difference of demand charge as applicable to 33 KV and 11 KV Tariff from the date of reduction of load. This letter is Annexure-4. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the decision was taken by the Board in his 438th meeting held on 19-2-1996. The petitioner protested against the letter of the Chief Engineer dated 18-4-1996 contending, inter alia, that the said letter was in violation of the contract. When the petitioner was waiting for some reply of his letter, a supplementary bill on account of surcharge was raised. Thereafter, in all the monthly bills the Board continued to raise bill on the assumed Contract Demand of 1200 KVA. The petitioner was not in a position to replace the then existing transformer as it was financially handicapped and to this effect Secretary of the Department of Industries also wrote a letter to the chairman of the Board on 4-2-1997 requesting the Chairman of the Board to allow the petitioner to retain the then existing transformer of 2000 KVA and not to disconnect the supply of the petitioner. This letter is Annexure-9. Inspite of all these facts when the authorities continued to raise the bills on the basis of Contract Demand of 1200 KVA, the petitioner approached the Member, Finance, of the Board, the General Manager and the Chief Engineer including other authorities by filing representation but without any result. The petitioner ultimately filed a representation on 4-2-1997 before the Chairman of the Board, which is Annexure-12. This representation was rejected by the Board and the petitioner was requested to make payment of all the dues for avoiding disconnection of supply of electrical energy. The petitioner, to avoid disconnection offered to pay the genuine dues and requested for not disconnecting the electrical energy. Thereafter on subsequent dates the Superintending Engineer reiterating the stand of the Board threatened the petitioner to disconnect the supply in case of failure to make payment of all outstanding dues. This letter is Annexure-14. On 30-4-1997 the electricity supply line of the petitioner was disconnected and the petitioner finding no way out entered into an agreement to pay Rupees 6.95/- lacs towards the first instalment and on payment of the same the electric connection was restored on 1-5-1997. The petitioner, however, protested before the higher authority of the Board expressing his resentment for forcing it to sign an agreement on payment of the dues. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3792 of 1997 challenging the bill from the month of February, 1997 including the arrears of Rupees 37,17,545/-. This Court directed the Board to abide by the interim order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1632 of 1997 so far as the demand of fuel surcharge was concerned and also directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Chairman relating to demand of surcharge for using a higher capacity of transformer. The Board was directed to pass an order on this representation within a specified period and till then the Board was restrained from disconnecting the electric supply of the petitioner's premises on payment of current energy bill. The order of the High Court is Annexure-15. On the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to order of this Court the Chairman took a decision, which is Annexure-17. The petitioner filed contempt application being M.J.C. No. 254 of 1998 on the allegation that though this Court directed the Board to dispose of the representation but the Chairman himself has taken a decision. The said contempt petition is still pending. This decision of the Chairman was ultimately rectified by the Board and this fact intimated to the petitioner on 9-3-1998.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the decision of the Chairman, which was rectified by the Board subsequently, the petitioner has moved this Court in the present writ application challenging the very jurisdiction of the Chairman to pass the said order. Similarly prayer has been made to quash the bills and to set aside the letter dated 18-4-1996 etc.